MIT researchers conducted a global survey to determine how people felt about the ethical dilemmas presented by autonomous vehicles, The Economist reports. Prof. Iyad Rahwan explains that he and his colleagues thought it was important to survey people from around the world as “nobody was really investigating what regular people thought about this topic.”
Popular Mechanics reporter Dave Grossman writes that MIT researchers surveyed more than 2 million people to gauge people’s opinions on the ethics of autonomous vehicles. Grossman explains that the researchers believe their findings demonstrate how “people across the globe are eager to participate in the debate around self-driving cars and want to see algorithms that reflect their personal beliefs.”
The results of the Media Lab’s “Moral Machine” survey provides a glimpse into how people will respond to the ethical dilemmas surrounding autonomous vehicle accidents. “The point here, the researchers say, is to initiate a conversation about ethics in technology, and to guide those who will eventually make the big decisions about AV morality,” writes Wired’s Aarian Marshall.
Using an online platform known as the “Moral Machine,” researchers at the Media Lab have surveyed more than two million people from 233 countries about how an autonomous vehicle should respond in a crash. “The Moral Machine game is similar to the infamous trolley problem,” writes Tracey Lindeman for Motherboard, “but calibrated for the autonomous car.”
A new study from Media Lab researchers highlights the result of an online survey that asked volunteers how a self-driving vehicle should respond to a variety of potential accidents. “Moral responses to unavoidable damage vary greatly around the world in a way that poses a big challenge for companies planning to build driverless cars,” writes Alex Hern in The Guardian.
A new paper by MIT researchers details the results of a survey on an online platform they developed, which asked respondents to make ethical decisions about fictional self-driving car crashes. “Millions of users from 233 countries and territories took the quiz, making 40 million ethical decisions in total,” writes James Vincent of The Verge.
Carolyn Johnson writes for The Washington Post about a new MIT study “that asked people how a self-driving car should respond when faced with a variety of extreme trade-offs.” According to Prof. Iyad Rahwan, “regulating AI will be different from traditional products, because the machines will have autonomy and the ability to adapt,” explains Johnson.
MIT researchers used an online platform known as the “Moral Machine” to gauge how humans respond to ethical decisions made by artificial intelligence, reports Jamie Leventhal for PBS NewsHour. According to postdoc Edmond Awad, two goals of the platform were to foster discussion and “quantitatively [measure] people’s cultural preferences.”
A new book by Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program, focuses on Harvey Washington Wiley’s “fight for pure food,” explains Joshua Johnson, host of NPR’s 1A. While food safety has improved, Blum believes “it’s not safe enough and that our safety mechanisms have been – as they were in Wiley’s time – weakened over the years.”
Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program, speaks with Radio Boston’s Deborah Becker about her book on Harvey Washington Wiley’s quest to make food safer in America. “I think we have a long way to go in being really transparent about what’s in food,” says Blum about current food safety protections.
A study by MIT researchers demonstrates how air pollution can significantly reduce profits from solar panel installations, reports Avery Thompson for Popular Mechanics. The researchers found that in Delhi, “electricity generation is reduced by more than 10 percent,” Thompson explains, “which translates to a cost of more than $20 million.”
In an article for The Wall Street Journal, Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen argues that having the Securities and Exchange Commission switch to semiannual reporting would not encourage more firms to make long-term investments. Pozen notes that, “a better idea for reforming financial reporting would be for firms to stop issuing ‘guidance’ on their earnings for the next quarter or year.”
Zofia Niemtus writes for The Guardian about tech startups focused on helping breastfeeding mothers. Niemtus notes that MIT’s second “Make The Breast Pump Not Suck!” hackathon, which focused on marginalized groups in society, resulted in projects like “a pop-up shelf for pumping in unsanitary public places; a lactation kit for use in disaster zones; and a virtual reality app.”
Steven Melendez of Fast Company reports on a new system from MIT researchers called Accountability of Unreleased Data for Improved Transparency, or AUDIT, which could help the public track police surveillance. “While certain information may need to stay secret for an investigation to be done properly, some details have to be revealed for accountability to even be possible,” says graduate student Jonathan Frankle.
STAT reporter Orly Nadell Farber writes about a new study by Prof. Amy Finkelstein that challenges the widely held assumption that a large portion of Medicare spending goes towards end-of-life care. “We spend money on sick people — some of them die, some of them recover,” says Finkelstein. “Maybe some recover, in part, because of what we spent on them.”