Outline

Gliederung

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming
Jonas Wanner, Lukas-Valentin Herm, Marvin Langer, Florian Imgrund, and Christian Janiesch

Bibtex

Cite as text

						@Select Types{,
							 
							 
							 
							 
							 
							Journal   = "Band-1",
							 Title= "A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming", 
							Author= "Jonas Wanner, Lukas-Valentin Herm, Marvin Langer, Florian Imgrund, and Christian Janiesch
", 
							Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_a2-wanner", 
							 Abstract= "Research into autonomous vehicles is making progress. While implementation is progressing through machine learning and efficient sensor technology, one key challenge remains dealing with moral disputes. In general, traffic requires for moral decisions that might even decide on the life or death of participants. While people make intuitive decisions in accidents, a decision of an autonomous vehicle is made already at the programming stage. Thus, a concrete handling for implementation is needed. Due to a lack of legislation, this is still missing and prevents car manufacturers from a practical solution. The paper at hand addresses this problem by presenting a consensus mechanism, combining moral convictions, legislation, and programming guidelines. Based on a study of dilemma situations, moral principles of the ‘correct action’ of autonomous vehicles are derived. Of four principles, we confirm one, reject two, and propose one for further research investigation to form a basis for jurisdictions.

", 
							 Keywords= "Autonomous Driving, Dilemma Situations, AI Ethics, Moral Machine, AI Programming Guidelines
", 
							}
					
Jonas Wanner, Lukas-Valentin Herm, Marvin Langer, Florian Imgrund, and Christian Janiesch: A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_a2-wanner (Abgerufen 23.11.24)
https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_a2-wanner

Open Access

Abstract

Abstract

Research into autonomous vehicles is making progress. While implementation is progressing through machine learning and efficient sensor technology, one key challenge remains dealing with moral disputes. In general, traffic requires for moral decisions that might even decide on the life or death of participants. While people make intuitive decisions in accidents, a decision of an autonomous vehicle is made already at the programming stage. Thus, a concrete handling for implementation is needed. Due to a lack of legislation, this is still missing and prevents car manufacturers from a practical solution. The paper at hand addresses this problem by presenting a consensus mechanism, combining moral convictions, legislation, and programming guidelines. Based on a study of dilemma situations, moral principles of the ‘correct action’ of autonomous vehicles are derived. Of four principles, we confirm one, reject two, and propose one for further research investigation to form a basis for jurisdictions.

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Autonomous Driving, Dilemma Situations, AI Ethics, Moral Machine, AI Programming Guidelines

References

Referenzen

1. Bain & Company, https://www.bain.com/de/ueber-uns/presse/pressemitteilungen/ germany/2019/bain-analyse-zum-mobilitatssektor/ (2019)
2. Rosenzweig, J., Bartl, M.: A review and analysis of literature on autonomous driving. The Making of Innovation. E-Journal (2015)
3. Merfeld, K., Wilhelms, M.-P., Henkel, S., Kreutzer, K.: Carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles: Uncovering drivers, barriers and future developments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 144, 66-81 (2019)
4. Marshall, A., https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-crash-arizonapedestrian/ (2018)
5. Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes. Fundstelle: Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. (2017)
6. Janiesch, C., Fischer, M., Winkelmann, A., Nentwich, V.: Specifying autonomy in the Internet of Things: the autonomy model and notation. Information Systems and e-Business Management 17, 159-194 (2019)
7. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.- F., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 59 (2018)
8. Nunamaker Jr, J., Briggs, R., Derrick, D., Schwabe, G.: The last research mile: Achieving both rigor and relevance in information systems research. Journal of management information systems 32, 10-47 (2015)
9. Moor, J.: The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE intelligent systems 21, 18-21 (2006)
10. Maurer, M., Gerdes, J., Lenz, B., Winner, H.: Autonomes Fahren: technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2015)
11. Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V.: Von Fahrerassistenzsystemen zum automatisierten Fahren – VDA. Brandenburgische Universitätsdruckerei. (2015)
12. Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada (2017)
13. Bellet, T., Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Pütz, F., Spickermann, F., Braendle, C., Baumann, M.F.: From semi to fully autonomous vehicles: New emerging risks and ethico-legal challenges for human-machine interactions. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 63, 153-164 (2019)
14. Nyholm, S., Smids, J.: The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical theory and moral practice 19, 1275-1289 (2016)
15. Faulhaber, A., Dittmer, A., Blind, F., Wächter, M., Timm, S., Sütfeld, L., Stephan, A., Pipa, G., König, P.: Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Science and engineering ethics 25, 399-418 (2019)
16. Kezar, A.: Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. The Journal of Higher Education 81, 670-671 (2010)
17. Noll, B.: Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik in der Marktwirtschaft. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart (2013)
18. Gerdes, J., Thornton, S.: Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. Autonomes fahren, 87-102. Springer, Berlin (2015)
19. Mill, J.: Utilitarianism and on liberty: Including Mill’s’ Essay on Bentham’and selections from the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, UK (2008)
20. Pleger, W.: Das gute Leben: eine Einführung in die Ethik. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (2017)
21. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems 24, 45-77 (2007)
22. Webster, J., Watson, R.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly xiii-xxiii (2002)
23. Myers, M., Newman, M.: The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and organization 17, 2-26 (2007)
24. Schnell, R., Hill, P., Esser, E.: Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Oldenburger Wissenschaftsverlag, Oldenburg (1999)
25. Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F.: Autonomous vehicles and embedded artificial intelligence: The challenges of framing machine driving decisions. Applied Artificial Intelligence 33, 706-731 (2019)
26. Baumann, M., Brändle, C., Coenen, C., Zimmer-Merkle, S.: Taking responsibility: a responsible research and innovation (RRI) perspective on insurance issues of semi-autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 124, 557-572 (2019)
27. Li, G., Deng, X., Gao, Z., Chen, F.: Analysis on Ethical Problems of Artificial Intelligence Technology. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Modern Educational Technology, 101-105. ACM (2019)
28. Borenstein, J., Herkert, J., Miller, K.: Self-driving cars: Ethical responsibilities of design engineers. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 36, 67-75 (2017)
29. Poon, N., Sung, J.: Self‐driving cars and AI‐assisted endoscopy: Who should take the responsibility when things go wrong? Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 34, 625-626 (2019)
30. Schuelke‐Leech, B.-A., Jordan, S., Barry, B.: Regulating Autonomy: An Assessment of Policy Language for Highly Automated Vehicles. Review of Policy Research (2019)
31. Hubbard, S.: Automated vehicle legislative issues. Transportation research record 2672, 1-13 (2018)
32. Mackie, T.: Proving liability for highly and fully automated vehicle accidents in Australia. Computer Law & Security Review 34, 1314-1332 (2018)
33. De Bruyne, J., Werbrouck, J.: Merging self-driving cars with the law. Computer law & security review 34, 1150-1153 (2018)
34. Islam, M., Rashid, S.: Algorithm for Ethical Decision Making at Times of Accidents for Autonomous Vehicles. 4th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information & Communication Technology, 438-442. IEEE (2018)
35. Peterson, M.: The value alignment problem: a geometric approach. Ethics and Information Technology 21, 19-28 (2019)
36. Aydemir, F., Dalpiaz, F.: Poster: Ethics-Aware Software Engineering. 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, 228-229. IEEE (2018)
37. Morris, D., http://fortune.com/2016/10/15/mercedes-self-driving-car-ethics. (2016)
38. Winfield, A., Jirotka, M.: Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 1-13 (2018)
39. Shladover, S., Nowakowski, C.: Regulatory challenges for road vehicle automation: Lessons from the california experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice (2019)
40. Campbell, D., Stanley, J.: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books, London (2015)
41. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., Ekhtiari, H., Dehghani, M.: The role of self-sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PloS one 10, 1-12 (2015)
42. Tyler, T.: Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of social issues 62, 307-326 (2006)
43. Sütfeld, L., Gast, R., König, P., Pipa, G.: Using virtual reality to assess ethical decisions in road traffic scenarios: applicability of value-of-life-based models and influences of time pressure. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 11, 122 (2017)
44. Bostyn, D., Sevenhant, S., Roets, A.: Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological science 29, 1084-1093 (2018)
45. Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I.: The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573-1576 (2016)
46. Hevelke, A., Nida-Rümelin, J.: Selbstfahrende Autos und Trolley-Probleme: Zum Aufrechnen von Menschenleben im Falle unausweichlicher Unfälle. Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 19, 5-24 (2015)
47. Matthaei, R., Reschka, A., Rieken, J., Dierkes, F., Ulbrich, S., Winkle, T., Maurer, M.: Autonomes Fahren. Handbuch Fahrerassistenzsysteme, 1139-1165. Springer, Wiesbaden (2015)
48. Goodall, N.: Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transportation Research Record 2424, 58-65 (2014)

Most viewed articles

Meist angesehene Beiträge

GITO events | library.gito