The Moral Machine

Pikochu

Pikochu

has a placeholder custom title.
Retired Staff
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
5,831
Reaction score
2,675
Pronouns
  1. He/Him
Moral Machine

This is a unique little experiment and a bit of fun about what we think about the "lesser of two evils." From the project description:

We show you moral dilemmas, where a driverless car must choose the lesser of two evils, such as killing two passengers or five pedestrians. As an outside observer, you judge which outcome you think is more acceptable.
Click to expand...

Thought it would be a good idea for us to take this test, share our results and have a discussions based on these results. Hell, we might end up taking the test multiple times.

Disclaimer that applies to this thread also:

Disclaimer: These summaries are based on your judgment of a limited number of randomly generated scenarios, to help us keep the survey short. Therefore, these results <u>are not definitive</u>. Feel free to re-take the survey to see how your results may vary. Our goal here is not to judge anyone, but to help the public reflect on important and difficult decisions.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't be harsh on other people's results based on this test alone. It's rather a good jumping point for discussion of an issue that's probably going to be more and more relevant as time goes on.

With that in mind, here are my results: Moral Machine[/quote]
 
Wait. Why is a driverless car got to do with my morals? I'm not driving it. Also if it swerves anyway with a brake failure then if it has a brake failure, so why does it also go straight? Also what about speed? Also how's it my fault that they are crossing the road illegally anyway, I'm not viable and how's that got to with my morals?

This thing is whacked.
 
I think that the survey has too much saving passenger lives vs running over innocent pedestrians because I always choose to crash into the barrier lol :/
 
Lyrebird said:
Wait. Why is a driverless car got to do with my morals? I'm not driving it. Also if it swerves anyway with a brake failure then if it has a brake failure, so why does it also go straight? Also what about speed? Also how's it my fault that they are crossing the road illegally anyway, I'm not viable and how's that got to with my morals?

This thing is whacked.
Click to expand...
I think the best way to approach this is to imagine that you are the programmer of the driverless car. You have to give it the criteria to make decisions, so your morals will affect how it performs in the real world.


Anyway, I also gave it a go...

I voted to save the passengers' lives whenever possible. I think that should be the main directive of the car. I noticed the average response was a bit split on this, which I can certainly understand, but I remain committed to my answer.

One thing that kind of surprised me was the species preference. Sure, the average overall tended towards humans, but there were still a significant number of votes for cats/dogs that offset it. I'm not sure if there are just trolls affecting the survey data, or if the internet is more full of misanthropy than I thought, or both. I don't think any person or computer program should hesitate for split second before deciding to kill the animal.

The thing I differed most from the average was on social value. I found this result kinda funny, since I didn't factor that in to my decisions at all, but I still ended up all the way to the right. This was simply a coincidence based on my other criteria.


My thought process/priorities for this was basically:
  1. Species. Humans first.
  2. Passengers have preference.
  3. # of Lives. Save more where possible.
  4. Law. If there are no human passengers and both options result in an equal number of human deaths, yield to the right-of-way.
  5. Intervention. Prefer to swerve. I'll freely admit that this is flawed reasoning on my part, but the way these options run through my head is this:
    1. Keep straight and deliberately plow into people, or
    2. Attempt to avoid them, but another group are accidentally caught in the alternate path.
    However, since all the information is already out on the table for this experiment, we can assume the car AI knows what the end result will be either way, so there are no "accidental outcomes." Still, I couldn't prevent this from giving me a least a little bit of bias. To follow up, I think in situations where the car is unable to determine the precise conditions on the other side of the road (or wherever option B may lead), it should swerve there and hope for the best. I admit that depending on the result, this could even end up breaking all of rules 1-4, but you're basically trading probabilities here for a better chance at a better outcome.
  6. Age. Assuming the AI is logical and doesn't trigger rule 5, prefer to save the younger group of people. I realize this is pretty cruel, but this was a bias that I couldn't help but let pervade my decisions.
  7. If we're still unable to make a decision, just swerve, based on the poor rule 5 reasoning.

Things I didn't factor in at all were gender, fitness, and social value. I can see a case being made for social value, and a small part of me might sympathize with that view, but I don't think I could bring myself to incorporate it into my own decisions.
 
Serpentsounds said:
One thing that kind of surprised me was the species preference. Sure, the average overall tended towards humans, but there were still a significant number of votes for cats/dogs that offset it. I'm not sure if there are just trolls affecting the survey data, or if the internet is more full of misanthropy than I thought, or both. I don't think any person or computer program should hesitate for split second before deciding to kill the animal.
Click to expand...
I've seen animals die in front of me before, and I have found it to be quite traumatic, so that probably makes me rather biased. But my preference is over animals. It doesn't mean you're a troll though, it just means you have a different set of values. Some of them just aren't necessarily... logical. When given a choice, I almost always have a bigger attachment to an animal than a stranger human. If I actually KNEW these people, of course I'd chose them over the animal. But otherwise? Well, maybe I'm just misanthropic, but I just cannot bring myself to end the life of something like that. Of course, I took the vote as my own preferences, rather than what the machine should do if it were programmed by someone else. I suspect others took this path as well. It doesn't mean I hate humans, it just means... I have a stronger connection to animals.
_________

The links to the results aren't really working, so I will detail it here. Note that these will absolutely not be 100% logical and will feature my biases. Alas, it is the weakness of being human.

Most Saved Character: Little boy. I... have a soft spot for them.
Most Killed Character: Elderly woman.

1. Saving more lives.

2. Protecting passengers. This wasn't really relevant, but it tended to veer in this direction due to the amount of people breaking the law. I'll go into that in that section.

3. Upholding the law of course matters to me more, based on what I said in number 2. I always feel people should know better. Not to say that they DESERVE to get run over, but cars are death machines and knowing all the laws is crucial to perserve your safety.

4. Avoiding intervention leans towards does not matter. I did feel bad on a few occasions crashing into people rather than colliding into them, but the other factors were more relevant to me.

5. Species: Animal first. Sorry, strangers.

6. Gender Preference: Male. I find it interesting that most others chose female, but again, I'm more biased towards men for some reason. I know this. However, logically speaking, gender is irrelevant to me and isn't exactly something I'd try to consciously factor in.

7. Species Preference: Animals. Sorry humans.

8. Age Preference: Younger.

9. Fitness Preference: Fit.

10. Social Value Preference: Higher. I think except for my little animal/male bias, I'm kind of... cut throat about being productive and having a worth to society. Who knows though? I'd have to be in the situation to really know what happens when it all comes down to it, and I'm notoriously bad at thinking quickly, so my decision would most likely be split second and not have any real thought behind it.
 
Arylett Charnoa said:
I've seen animals die in front of me before, and I have found it to be quite traumatic, so that probably makes me rather biased. But my preference is over animals. It doesn't mean you're a troll though, it just means you have a different set of values. Some of them just aren't necessarily... logical. When given a choice, I almost always have a bigger attachment to an animal than a stranger human. If I actually KNEW these people, of course I'd chose them over the animal. But otherwise? Well, maybe I'm just misanthropic, but I just cannot bring myself to end the life of something like that. Of course, I took the vote as my own preferences, rather than what the machine should do if it were programmed by someone else. I suspect others took this path as well. It doesn't mean I hate humans, it just means... I have a stronger connection to animals.
Click to expand...

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to (strongly) disagree. :p My take is, all animals that we know of are objectively lower life forms than humans. There's little logic in sacrificing human life to preserve them.

If the decision came down to a complete stranger (or even someone you actively wished ill of) vs. your lifelong beloved pet, I can empathize with some people getting tripped up. I still think it'd usually be an illogical decision to save the animal, but I could at least see where they're coming from. Anything short of that polarization, though, is a complete no-brainer to me.
 
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

Saving more lives matters a lot.
Protecting passengers is almost always not above protecting pedestrians. The passengers boarded the car with knowledge it may lead to accidents.
Upholding the law, I don't care at all. Law doesn't matter to me when there are lives at stake.
No gender preference.
Save humans over pets. Perhaps with the exception of criminals, though.
Save younger over older people. The older ones have lived most of their lives, I believe the young should be the ones spared if I have to pick...
Fitness prefrence, slight on the fit people (it seems to be too much in the results because I got lots of questions like this...). Large people may face health problems soon anyway.
Social value prefrence, trying to hit criminals. If lives have to be lost, it might as well be those who are commiting wrongdoings to the society. Also, if it really comes down to just it, I would prefer medical personnel > executives > homeless people in that order. Medical personnel deserve to be saved the most while in the homeless' people's case I would just want to spare them from having to live without a home.
 
Well, that was interesting to take. And really interesting reading this thread seeing the different preferences and discussion on it!

Saving More Lives: Matters a lot, mine was higher than the average
Protecting Passengers: Sort of matters, was a little higher than the average and leaned toward protecting those in the car
Upholding the Law: a little over half (toward matters a lot), but slightly below the average. Which is hilarious because I'm usually a huge stickler for the rules so that's lower than I'd have guessed
Avoiding Intervention: leaned more towards not mattering, which me below the average (which favors it mattering a lot)
Gender Preference: almost in the center, leaning slightly toward females though I thought I was pretty equal lol
Species Preference: super high preference for pets, way above the average. Sorry, but I have always been able to connect easier and more deeply to animals than other people in general, so I will save them in most cases
Age Preference: exactly even (compared to others favoring children more); I don't really care one way or another
Fitness Preference: again, exactly (or very close to, anyway) dead-center with no real preference
Social Value Preference: higher, with me scoring at the very farthest reach of "higher;" the scenarios didn't specify what kind of criminal was involved, but I have no sympathy for most kinds of criminals (the ones that actively harm others such as burglars, predators, murderers, drunk drivers, etc) or societal troublemakers, so of course I'll save other lives over theirs
 
Most saved character: Males
Most killed character: Males

Saving more lives: Way, way above average. All the way at the far right.

Protecting passengers: Below average, about a third of the way to the far left.

Upholding the law: Exactly on average, about a quarter of the way to the far right.

Avoiding intervention: Below average, just a small amount left.

Gender preference: Below average, exactly in the middle. I expected this one the most.

Species preference: Way above average, exactly in the middle.

Age preference: Above average, exactly in the middle.

Fitness preference: Slightly above average, exactly in the middle.

Social value preference: Above average, exactly in the middle.


Overall, I'm happy with my results. My lack of preference towards either gender reflects me personally, as do my complete lack of preferences altogether and heavy importance on saving more lives. One personal observation I noticed was that I always chose to save at least one pregnant woman when given the chance. Scenarios in which there was one on each side, I found particularly difficult...
 
This topic sounded really interesting, so I went ahead and took the test. I've written about some of the scenarios I was given below... and I apologize to everyone in advance for the ultra-long length.

1. This one was tricky for a little bit: save three human passengers or save three human pedestrians. Both options sounded awful, until I realized something… if the car goes through the pedestrians and saves the passengers, then couldn't the car potentially hit an oncoming car from the street and not only possibly kill the passengers, but also the occupants of the oncoming car, too? Also, if the car isn't hit by an oncoming car, then what's stopping it from continuing even further down the street and hitting even more pedestrians before it finally stops on its own? Once I thought about that, the choice became easy… kill the passengers, because everyone - and more - would potentially die in the other scenario anyway. That said, if I had assumed that the test was in a vaccum, or if I knew that the car would stop after hitting the pedestrians, then I probably would have chosen to kill the pedestrians instead.

2. Empty car this time, so no passenger casualties. However, this time it was male pedestrians vs. female pedestrians - the former with a red signal and latter with a green signal. This one was a little tough, but in the end I decided to save the females, not really because they were on a green light, but because I figured that from a sheer preservation-of-the-human-race standpoint, that a female's ability to carry children would be a valubale trait to have in survivors. Honestly, that didn't feel like much of a great reason to me, but I guess no decision feels that great on a test like this, huh?

3. This one was simple: kill the executive male passenger or kill the homeless male pedestrian. I used the same logic I had with #1: if the test is in a vacuum, kill the pedestrian; if it isn't, kill the passenger.

4. This time it was kill the younger woman or kill the elderly woman, both with an empty car. This one was actually pretty easy… I'd hit the elderly woman. It's an unfortunate scenario either way, but I chose the latter with the argument that an elderly woman, if hit, would have lived a long life at that point, while the younger woman still has her whole life ahead of her.

5. This time it was criminal pedestrians - and one innocent male pedestrian - versus five passengers, one of whom was a pregnant woman. I think that in this case, the fact that there's a pregnant passenger overrules everything, so for that reason alone, I'd choose to kill the criminals and the one innocent man here. But what if the car continued past the pedestrians like I think that it would in real life? In that case, I'd think that I would ignore my save-as-many-lives-as-possible rule and take a chance that after hitting the pedestrians, the car wouldn't hit another car passing by and kill the pregnant woman that way, because the alternative to that would have been the inevitable death of the pregnant woman when the car hits the barrier.

6. This time there was a baby as a pedestrian along with two other pedestrians in the street and two passengers in the car. Since there was a baby involved, and based on the thought that the car would tear right through the pedestrians in real life, this one was pretty easy. I'd choose to kill the passengers, because I feel that babies are more important to be saved versus everyone else.

7. For this one, the choice was either killing two pedestrians with a green light, or killing five pedestrians with a red light. In this case, red vs. green didn't matter to me as much as saving as many lives as possible, so I chose to kill the two pedestrians. That said, I'd imagine that, because of the lights, there would be some serious legal discussions about a decision like this in real life...

8. Saving five animals vs. saving five human pedestrians, one of which was a baby. This was an easy one… I'd kill the animals. Mainly because while I might feel somewhat bad for their deaths, I would feel far worse if a baby was killed instead.

One thing I noticed with my choices was that the occupations of both of the passengers and the pedestrians didn't really matter to me that much if they were all adults. So with #3, for example, I didn't really care that the pedestrian was homeless, or that the passenger was an executive. Also, I think that my choices were mainly influenced by my desire to save as many lives as possible at (almost) any cost, hence why I would usually decide to kill passengers if I thought that the car wouldn't stop after hitting a pedestrian (which I don't think it would in real life).

Now for the results:

Most Saved Character:
Females (no surprise there... I think that I simply value female lives more in most of these scenarios.)
Most Killed Character:
Animals (versus everyone else, animals are unforunately at the low end of the totem pole for me.)
Saving More Lives:
Matters a Lot (as expected.)
Protecting Passengers:
Halfway between Doesn't Matter and Neutral (that doesn't sound very good, but that's probably skewed by the logic I came up with earlier. Had my choices been based solely on the world of the test, I'd imagine that the result would be closer to Neutral.)
Upholding the Law:
Mostly Neutral; closer to Matters a Lot
Avoiding Intervention:
Halfway between Matters a Lot and Neutral
Gender Preference:
Female (again, that's pretty accurate.)
Species Preference:
Humans (yep.)
Age Preference:
Halfway between Younger and Neutral (no surprise there, either.)
Fitness Preference:
Fit People (not intentionally, though… I didn't really care either way.)
Social Value Preference:
Neutral

This was an interesting little test, even if I wouldn't personally call it "fun"... maybe more like slightly depressing, with all of those tough decisions I had to make. And it's always interesting to see other people's opinions and thought processes behind stuff like this. Thanks for the link, Pikochu!
 
Please note: The thread is from 9 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom