The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 21 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Moral Machine experiment
Open accessAbstract
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence have come concerns about how machines will make moral decisions, and the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behaviour. To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an online experimental platform designed to explore the moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles. This platform gathered 40 million decisions in ten languages from millions of people in 233 countries and territories. Here we describe the results of this experiment. First, we summarize global moral preferences. Second, we document individual variations in preferences, based on respondents' demographics. Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries. Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions and deep cultural traits. We discuss how these preferences can contribute to developing global, socially acceptable principles for machine ethics. All data used in this article are publicly available.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The Moral Machine used a multilingual online game to gather millions of judgments about unavoidable autonomous-vehicle crash dilemmas, revealing strong global preferences for sparing humans, more lives, and younger lives. It also found demographic variation that did not reverse preferences, three broad cultural clusters, and country-level correlations with cultural and economic indicators.
Key findings
- The platform collected 39.61 million decisions from 233 countries and territories; the abstract describes roughly 40 million decisions from over 2.3 million people in ten languages.
- Worldwide, the strongest preferences were for sparing humans over animals, sparing more characters, and sparing younger characters; weaker preferences included sparing women and sparing pedestrians.
- Among 492,921 respondents who completed the optional demographic survey, individual characteristics such as age, gender, income, education, politics, and religion did not change the direction of any preference, with effects all below 0.1.
- Country-level clustering identified three groups—Western, Eastern, and Southern—and preferences correlated with individualism/collectivism, GDP per capita, rule of law, economic inequality, and gender gaps in health and survival.
Methods
- The Moral Machine was an online “serious game” launched in June 2016 and later translated into nine additional languages; users chose between two outcomes in unavoidable accident scenarios.
- In Judge mode, sessions contained 13 dilemmas generated around nine factors: species, number of lives, age, gender, physical fitness, social status, pedestrian legality, passenger versus pedestrian status, and whether the car swerves.
- Analyses used conjoint analysis to estimate average marginal component effects, hierarchical clustering of 130 countries with at least 100 respondents, and country-level correlations with socio-economic and cultural indicators.
Limitations
- The paper states that the sample was self-selected and not guaranteed to be representative, so policymakers should not treat the results as the final word on societal preferences.
- The paper states that scenarios assumed certainty about character classification and life-and-death outcomes, did not manipulate respondent-character relationships, and captured preferences before autonomous vehicles are deployed.
- Evident from the text: the findings are based on hypothetical choices from an internet-connected, tech-interested population, and the cross-sectional design cannot establish causal mechanisms behind country-level correlations.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
38 Own result · 16 Own interpretation · 7 Own method · 7 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Our previous work did not find a strong impact of this variable on moral preferences 12”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573–1576 (2016). source
The Figure 3 caption (p. 11) says the moral preference was robust when respondents imagined riding with a coworker, family member, or their own child. Study 3 (p. 4) found that imagining a family member significantly lowered the morality rating, but it remained above the scale midpoint; thus the relationship affected ratings without overturning the preference. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These codes seldom recognize, though, that humans experience inner conflict, interpersonal disagreements, and cultural dissimilarities in the moral domain 31 , 32 , 33 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D. & Slovic, P. The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 44, 711–714 (2011). source
- Partly supportedcites [32] Nishi, A., Christakis, N. A. & Rand, D. G. Cooperation, decision time, and culture: online experiments with American and Indian participants. PLoS ONE 12, e0171252 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes conflicted choices between cooperation and defection, and the Discussion reports cross-cultural differences in cooperation between American and Indian participants. The paper does not address interpersonal disagreements or whether the codes in the citing sentence recognize these experiences; its findings concern cooperation in economic games rather than the moral domain generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“are broadly consistent with both geographical and cultural proximity according to the Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map 2010-2014 21 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2005).
plaincorrelationaln = 100- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spain appears in the Western cluster, adjacent to Portugal and other European countries, rather than in the Spanish-speaking Latin American sub-cluster.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“clusters largely differ in the weight they give to some preferences.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same is true about the preference for sparing higher status characters.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that individual variations have no sizable impact on any of the nine attributes (all below 0.1; see Figure S6 in SI).”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS
plainn = 492,921- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference”
- Also stated in: § INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS · plain
“none of the six characteristics splits its subpopulations into opposing directions of effect”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plainn = 492,921- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS · plain
In the paper
“Figure 4c shows a substantial correlation ( ) between this MM distance and the cultural distance from the US based on the World Values .49ρ = 0 Survey 22 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > COUNTRY-LEVEL PREDICTORS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Muthukrishna, M. Beyond WEIRD psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Preprint at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3259613 (2018). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“participants from countries which are poorer and suffer from weaker institutions are more tolerant of pedestrians who cross illegally, presumably because of their experience of lower rule compliance and weaker punishment of rule deviation 26 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > COUNTRY-LEVEL PREDICTORS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] Gächter, S. & Schulz, J. F. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531, 496–499 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports in its main text (labelled Abstract in our copy; page unavailable) that participants from countries with more prevalent rule violations showed less intrinsic honesty, and it suggests that unpunished cheating may make dishonesty seem justifiable. It does not report that participants from poorer countries were more tolerant of pedestrians crossing illegally, or establish weaker punishment as the reason for such tolerance; its experiment measured honesty using a die-rolling task. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians)”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the preference to spare younger characters rather than older characters is much less pronounced for countries in the Eastern cluster, and much higher for countries in the Southern cluster.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third cluster (a broadly Southern cluster) consists of the Latin American countries of Central and South America, in addition to some countries that are characterized in part by French influence”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the (weak) preference for sparing pedestrians over passengers and the (moderate) preference for sparing the lawful over the unlawful appear to be shared to the same extent in all clusters.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both male and female respondents indicated Δ preference for Sparing Females, but the latter group showed stronger preference”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS
plaincorrelationaln = 492,921- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“male respondents are 0.06 percentage point less inclined to spare females and 0.09 percentage point more inclined to spare humans compared to female respondents”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS
plaincorrelationaln = 492,921- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second cluster (which we call the Eastern cluster) contains many far eastern countries such as Japan and Taiwan, belonging to the Confucianist cultural group, and Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the four most spared characters are the baby, the little girl, the little boy, and the pregnant woman”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or for that matter, women over men, overweight persons over athletes, or executives over homeless persons--all of which we see weaker but clear effects for.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories”
- Also stated in: § Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection. · plain
“allowed us to collect 39.61 million decisions in 233 countries, dependencies, or territories”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the strongest preferences are observed for sparing humans over animals, sparing more lives, and sparing young lives.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observe some striking peculiarities, like the strong preference for sparing women and the strong preference for sparing fit characters in the Southern cluster.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one increase in standard deviation of religiosity of respondent is associated with 0.09 more inclination to spare humans, 0.08 less inclination to spare the lawful, 0.06 more inclination to spare pedestrians, and 0.06 less inclination to spare the fit.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS
plaincorrelationaln = 492,921- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Association between the preference for sparing the lawful and each of rule of law and log of GDP per capita (inset).”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > METHODS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The country from which users access the website, geo-localized through IP address, is a valid proxy for the country-level moral preferences of that country.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Association between individualism and each of the preference for sparing more characters, and the preference for sparing the young (inset).”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > METHODS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The country from which users access the website, geo-localized through IP address, is a valid proxy for the country-level moral preferences of that country.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Moral Machine was deployed to initiate such a conversation, and millions of people weighed in from around the world .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“German Ethical Rule #9 does not take a clear stance on whether and when AVs should be programmed to sacrifice the few to spare the many, but leaves this possibility open”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Luetge, C. The German Ethics Code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“German Ethical Rule #7 unambiguously states that in dilemma situations, the protection of human life should enjoy top priority over the protection of other animal life.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Luetge, C. The German Ethics Code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017). source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, these three preferences may be considered essential building blocks for machine ethics, or at least essential topics to be considered by policymakers.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal structure within this cluster also exhibits notable face validity, with a sub-cluster containing Protestant / Scandinavian countries, and a sub-cluster containing Commonwealth / English-speaking countries.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > CULTURAL CLUSTERS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
In the paper
“consensus in this matter is going to be important.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] Dadich, S. Barack Obama, neural nets, self-driving cars, and the future of the world. Wired https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/ (2016).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“German Ethical Rule #9 also states that any distinction based on personal features, such as age, should be prohibited.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > GLOBAL PREFERENCES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Luetge, C. The German Ethics Code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Greene, J. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them (Atlantic Books, London, 2013).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] Tomasello, M. A Natural History of Human Thinking (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Cushman, F. & Young, L. The psychology of dilemmas and the philosophy of morality. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 12, 9–24 (2009). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > Abstract With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence technology come widespread concerns about how machines will behave in morally charged situations.Addressing these concerns raises the major challenge of quantifying societal expectations about the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior.To address this challenge, we deployed the Moral Machine, an Internet-based experimental platform that is designed to explore the multi-dimensional moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles.This platform enabled us to gather 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories, and thus to assess the paths and obstacles to machine ethics.First, we summarize global moral preferences, some of them strong (e.g., sparing more lives or younger individuals), and some of them weak (e.g., sparing women, sparing pedestrians).Second, we document individual variations of these preferences, based on respondents' demographics (e.g., age, gender, income), and find that demographics do not change the direction of any preference.Third, we report cross-cultural ethical variation, and uncover three major clusters of countries exhibiting substantial differences along key moral preferences about autonomous vehicles.Fourth, we show that these differences correlate with modern institutions, but also with deep cultural traits.We discuss how these three layers of preferences can contribute to developing global, harmonious, and socially acceptable principles for machine ethics.All data used in this article can be accessed and downloaded at https://goo.gl/JXRrBP .We are entering an age in which machines are not only tasked to promote well-being and minimize harm, but also to distribute the well-being they create, and the harm they cannot eliminate.Distributing well-being and harm inevitably creates tradeoffs, whose resolution falls in the moral domain 1 , 2 , 3 .Think of an autonomous vehicle (AV) that is about to crash, and cannot find a trajectory that would save everyone.Should it swerve onto one jaywalking teenager to spare its three elderly passengers?Should it swerve away from a group of children and kill a single adult passenger instead?Even in the more common instances in which harm is not inevitable, but just possible, AVs will need to decide how to divvy up the risk of harm between the different stakeholders on the road.Car manufacturers and policymakers are currently struggling with these moral dilemmas, in large part because they cannot be solved by any simple normative ethical principles like Asimov's laws of robotics 4 . Asimov's laws were not designed to solve the problem of universal machine ethics, and they were not even designed to let machines distribute harm between humans.They were a narrative device whose goal was to generate good stories, by showcasing how challenging it is to create moral machines with a dozen lines of code.And yet, we do not have the luxury to give up on creating moral machines 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 .AVs will cruise our roads soon, necessitating agreement on the principles that should apply when, inevitably, life-threatening dilemmas emerge.The frequency at which these dilemma will emerge is extremely hard to estimate, just as it is extremely hard to estimate the rate at which human drivers find themselves in comparable situations.Human drivers who die in crashes cannot report whether they were faced with a dilemma; and human drivers who survive a crash may not have realized that they were in a dilemma situation.Note though that ethical guidelines for AV choices in dilemma situations do not depend on the frequency of these situations.Whether these cases are rare, very rare, or extremely rare, we need to agree beforehand on how they should be solved. The keyword here is "we".As emphasized by former U.S. president Barack Obama 9 , consensus in this matter is going to be important.Decisions about the ethical principles that will guide AVs cannot be left to solely to either the engineers or the ethicists.For consumers to switch from traditional human-driven cars to AVs, and for the wider public to accept the proliferation of AI-driven vehicles on their roads, both groups will need to understand the origins of the ethical principles programmed into these vehicles 10 .In other words, even if ethicists were to agree on how AVs should solve moral dilemmas, their work would be useless if citizens were to disagree with their solution, and thus opt out of the future that AVs promise in lieu of the status quo.Any attempt to devise AI ethics must be at least cognizant of public morality. Accordingly, we need to gauge social expectations about the way AVs should solve moral dilemmas.This enterprise, however, is not without challenges 11 .The first challenge comes from the high-dimensionality of the problem.In a typical survey, one may test whether people prefer to spare many lives rather than few 9,12 , 13 ; or whether people prefer to spare the young rather than the elderly 14 , 15 ; or whether people prefer to spare pedestrians who cross legally, rather than pedestrians who jaywalk; or yet some other preference, or a simple combination of two or three of these preferences.But combining a dozen of such preferences leads to millions of possible scenarios, requiring a sample size that defies any conventional method of data collection.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the individual variations we observe are theoretically important, but not essential information for policymakers.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Attempts at establishing broad ethical codes for intelligent machines, like the Asilomar AI Principle s 30 , often recommend that machine ethics should be aligned with human values.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Knopf Doubleday, New York, 2012).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the fact that broad regions of the world displayed relative agreement suggests that our journey to consensual machine ethics is not doomed from the start.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we did not introduce uncertainty about the fates of the characters, and we did not introduce any uncertainty about the classification of these characters.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“our project builds on a long tradition of investigating cultural variations in ethical judgments 29 .”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29] Future of Life Institute. Asilomar AI Principles https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/ (2017).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“what the Moral Machine captured is the state of moral preferences before AVs are deployed on the road, and before they start facing moral dilemmas.”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“its downside is that our sample is self-selected, and not guaranteed to exactly match the socio-demographics of each country.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“But the fact that our samples are not guaranteed to be representative”
§ The Moral Machine Experiment: 40 Million Decisions and the Path to Universal Machine Ethics > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
The paper relies on this without support.
The 130 countries with at least 100 respondents are representative of their countries' moral preferences.
“We selected the 130 countries with at least 100 respondents (N range = [101 -448,125])”
The paper relies on this without support.
No research ever attempted to measure moral preferences using a 9-dimensional experimental design, in more than 200 countries.
“No research ever attempted to measure moral preferences using a 9-dimensional experimental design, in more than 200 countries.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the Moral Machine scenarios, characters were recognized as adults, children, etc. with 100% certainty, and life-and-death outcomes were predicted with 100% certainty.
“In our scenarios, characters were recognized as adults, children, etc. with 100% certainty, and life-and-death outcomes were predicted with 100% certainty.”
“These assumptions are technologically unrealistic, but they were necessary to keep the project tractable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The country from which users access the website, geo-localized through IP address, is a valid proxy for the country-level moral preferences of that country.
“The country from which users access the website is geo-localized through the IP address of their computer or mobile device.This information is used to compute a vector of moral preferences for each country.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These results by contrast clash with many rules such as the IEEE code of ethics and some of the German ethical rules that clearly prohibit any distinction based on personal features such as age. However, results of the moral machine show that people strongly preferred sparing the young (such as children).”
From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“At this level of abstraction meaningful guidance may be impossible.”
From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The platform gathered the opinion of millions of people from 233 countries with 40 million decisions in ten languages.”
From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, results show broad differences in relative preferences among different countries [153]. However, results show countries within close proximity to one another showed closer moral preferences, with three dominant clusters in the West, East, and South [154].”
From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Generally, results of the moral machine show that people prefer sparing humans over animals, sparing more lives, and sparing young lives [153].”
From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [153]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous work has shown that cultural and geographical differences play a key role in perceptions towards algorithmic systems [10,49,97].”
From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While some people are willing to sacrifice the elderly to save the young 169 , there are cultural differences on this preference 170 .”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [170]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Empirical work such as the Moral Machine Experiment has demonstrated that ethical preferences vary widely across cultures [8].”
From Ethics-Aware Safe Reinforcement Learning for Rare-Event Risk Control in Interactive Urban Driving (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Ethics should ensure the design of AI technologies for human flourishing around the world [192,193], but this is a very complex matter given that, as the work of Awad et al. [194,195] clearly demonstrates, universally valid and accepted ethical principles do not exist.”
From The sustainability of artificial intelligence: an urbanistic viewpoint from the lens of smart and sustainable cities (2020) · cites this paper as [194]
In the citing paper
“Humans have a wide range of culturally diverse beliefs about right and wrong, and aligning AI systems to human values and preferences is challenging even within narrow domains such as automated driving (151).”
From The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making (2024) · cites this paper as [151]
Citations
Cites
The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011) · Hague Journal on the Rule of Law · doi:10.1017/s1876404511200046 · Cited by 5,621
The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-7185 · Cited by 4,347
(2005) · Cited by 3,670
In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies
Henrich, J., Boyd, R. T., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H. M., & McElreath, R. L. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.73 · Cited by 2,619
Self-citation(2016) · Cited by 2,334
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpt024 · Cited by 1,990
A Natural History of Human Thinking
Tomasello, M. (2014) · doi:10.4159/9780674726369 · Cited by 1,923
The worldwide governance indicators : methodology and analytical issues
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010) · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5430 · Cited by 1,552
The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654 · Cited by 1,527
Self-citationMoral tribes: emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-4949 · Cited by 978
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,101–1,200 of 1,864
Autonomous Vehicles: A Technical Introduction
Pek, C., & van Waveren, S. (2024) · Data science, machine intelligence, and law · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-41992-8_2 · Cited by 2
The Problem with the Trolley Problem and the Need for Systems Thinking
Steen, M. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3635302 · Cited by 2
Garg, T., Kaur, G., & Goyal, R. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-23814-7.00003-1 · Cited by 2
Huang, Y.-K., Lu, C., Eccarius, T., & Kao, S.-L. (2024) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2024.2434754 · Cited by 2
“While research has extensively explored moral dilemmas in Level 5 autonomous vehicles (Awad et al. 2018; Noothigattu et al. 2017), there is limited investigation into how passengers interact with and make decisions in Level 4 self-driving bus scenarios, particularly when safety and ethical…”
Personalized Shared Control for Automated Vehicles Considering Driving Capability and Styles
Sun, B., Shan, Y., Wu, G., et al. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24247904 · Cited by 2
Huang, L. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56700-5 · Cited by 2
The plurality effect: People are more dishonest toward group than individual targets
Huang, H., Shao, R., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Diekmann, K. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2025) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104746 · Cited by 2
Zhang, A., & Zhou, X. (2025) · Journal of Digital Management · doi:10.1007/s44362-024-00001-2 · Cited by 2
“Scholars have also found that consumers generally assume that algorithms will use maximization as a decision-making strategy (Dietvorst & Bartels, 2022), and they thus do not accept AI as moral agents (Awad et al., 2018; Bigman & Gray, 2018; Du & Xie, 2021).”
Smith, J. N., Barnhill, A., Savulescu, J., Liao, S. M., McCoy, M. S., & Blumenthal‐Barby, J. (2025) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2025.2474911 · Cited by 2
“In the Moral Machine Experiment mentioned earlier, Awad et al. apply CREP to the question of what moral preferences or judgments to assign to autonomous vehicles (AV) (Awad et al. 2018).”
Engineering Moral Failure? The Challenges of Algorithmic Ethics for Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
Schwarz, E. (2025) · Bristol University Press eBooks · doi:10.56687/9781529237191-016 · Cited by 2
An Ethical Decision Making Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles During an Inevitable Collision
Tang, J., Luo, X., Chen, J., Yuan, Y., & Loo, J. Y. (2024) · International Conference on Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Risk Management (ICBAR) · doi:10.1145/3718751.3718928 · Cited by 2
“Another study based on descriptive ethics, using thought experiments, such as trolley problems, as tools/methods to evaluate social reasoning and select ethical decisions suitable for different autonomous driving collision scenarios [1].”
Bertheau, M. A. K., Boetzel, C., & Herrmann, C. S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-99531-6 · Cited by 2
Ju, U., Ryu, H. S., & Wallraven, C. (2025) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2025.05.011 · Cited by 2
Moral Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems
Tang, W., Cheng, M., Zhou, Y. H., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/se4ads66461.2025.00011 · Cited by 2
“The findings of [11] align with this guideline, showing that participants consistently favored sparing more lives when other factors were equal.”
InfluentialYoo, Y., Kim, H., & Park, J. (2025) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2025.108175 · Cited by 2
Sahithi, K. K., Riener, A., Álvarez, I., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/3744335.3749143 · Cited by 2
“The classical “trolley problem” shows the moral ambiguity inherent in unavoidable accident scenarios [3].”
Sergey, K., Natalya, S., Andrey, N., et al. (2019) · Bulletin of PNRPU Culture History Philosophy Law · doi:10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.2.05 · Cited by 2
Radicalisation violente, familles et santé mentale
Delile, J. (2019) · Cahiers critiques de thérapie familiale et de pratiques de réseaux · doi:10.3917/ctf.063.0037 · Cited by 2
Contradictions in Assessing Human Morals and the Ethical Design of Autonomous Vehicles
Trentin, V., Guerra, R. D. S., & Librelotto, G. R. (2019) · Latin American Robotics Symposium, Brazilian Symposium on Robotics and Workshop on Robotics in Education (LARS/SBR/WRE) · doi:10.1109/lars-sbr-wre48964.2019.00072 · Cited by 2
“In the results from the survey [8], the authors found out that the strongest preferences on a global scale were to save more lives, spare humans over animals and to spare the younger.”
BackgroundMiskolczi, M., Ásványi, K., Jászberényi, M., et al. (2021) · Magyar Tudomány · doi:10.1556/2065.182.2021.3.6 · Cited by 2
Bolano, A. (2018) · Science Trends · doi:10.31988/scitrends.41760 · Cited by 2
Künstliche Intelligenz und Haftungsrecht: die e-Person aus ökonomischer Sicht
Scheufen, M. (2019) · Wirtschaftsdienst · doi:10.1007/s10273-019-2466-0 · Cited by 2
van Berkel, N., Hosio, S. J., Tag, B., & Gonçalves, J. (2019) · ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) · doi:10.1145/3341162.3344846 · Cited by 2
“As such, recent work by inter alia Awad et al. [1] has offered participants concrete alternative outcomes – allowing participants to identify their preferred outcome.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPerception of Creative Responses to Moral Dilemmas by a Conversational Robot
Lindner, F., Kuhnert, B., Wächter, L., et al. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35888-4_10 · Cited by 2
“Both, normative and descriptive research in moral HRI so far has mainly investigated dilemmatic situations by asking people which choice a robot should make between two outcomes [2], or by asking participants to attribute blame to robots that act in one way or the other, e.”
Who wants to be a self-driving car?
Lee, J., Groß, B., & Reimann, R. (2020) · Information Design Journal · doi:10.1075/idj.25.1.02lee · Cited by 2
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence and Effective Universal Induction
Zimmermann, J., & Cremers, A. B. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6_3 · Cited by 3
Koreans’ Ethical Judgment on the Situation Characteristics of AVs(Autonomous Vehicles) Accidents
Lee, H., & Chung, E. K. (2021) · 한국심리학회지: 일반 · doi:10.22257/kjp.2021.3.40.1.105 · Cited by 2
Trust in autonomous cars: The role of value similarity and capacity for sympathy
Yokoi, R., & Nakayachi, K. (2021) · THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY · doi:10.2130/jjesp.2020 · Cited by 2
Ethical Review in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Heo, J. (2021) · AI Ethics Journal · doi:10.47289/aiej20210716-4 · Cited by 2
Ethics in Autonomous Vehicle Software: The Dilemmas
Motwani, S., Sharma, T., & Gupta, A. (2021) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2021.3077576 · Cited by 2
(Un)earthly governance: beyond functional frameworks to flourishing spacescapes
Mouat, C. M., Techera, E., Notebaert, L., Blake, M., & Barker, R. (2021) · Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law · doi:10.1108/jppel-02-2021-0015 · Cited by 2
The Use of Psychometrics and Artificial Intelligence in Alternative Finance
Romero, P., & Fitz, S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65117-6_21 · Cited by 4
Ethical decision-making responsibility in Canadian autonomous vehicle policies
Mokrian, K., & Schuelke‐Leech, B. (2021) · IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) · doi:10.1109/istas52410.2021.9629123 · Cited by 3
Driving Behavior and Decision Mechanisms in Emergency Conditions
Lyu, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, T., Kong, D., Lv, Z., Liu, Y., & Gao, Z. (2022) · World Electric Vehicle Journal · doi:10.3390/wevj13040062 · Cited by 2
Bai, H., Euh, H., Federico, C. M., & Borgida, E. (2021) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.657 · Cited by 3
Konfigurationen der Zeitlichkeit
Hilgers, T. (2021) · Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · doi:10.5771/9783748910961 · Cited by 2
Wabnegger, A., & Schienle, A. (2022) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2022.2090077 · Cited by 2
“We used the “Moral Machine Paradigm”, which has been designed to collect data on the moral acceptability of decisions made by autonomous vehicles in situations of unavoidable accidents (Awad et al., 2018).”
MethodResultInfluentialLenk, T., & Thummes, K. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-35695-8_10 · Cited by 2
The Cultural Influence of Control Sharing in Autonomous Driving
Wan, Y., Akpan, E., & Guo, H. (2022) · International Journal of Technoethics · doi:10.4018/ijt.302629 · Cited by 4
Robust Longitudinal Control of Self-Driving Racecar Models
Pedone, S., & Fagiolini, A. (2022) · European Control Conference (ECC) · doi:10.23919/ecc55457.2022.9837984 · Cited by 2
Etienne, H., & Cova, F. (2023) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393231164329 · Cited by 2
“The Moral Machine Experiment (MME, Awad et al., 2018) presented participants with a series of dilemmas involving AVs, in which they had to choose whether an AV should go ahead and harm certain people, or swerve and injure other people.”
BackgroundIslamic Religious Education Learning Model Based on Living Values Educations in Higher Education
Solehuddin, M. S., Tarihoran, D., Nurteti, L., Philipp, C., & Henkin, C. (2023) · al-fikrah Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan · doi:10.31958/jaf.v11i1.8612 · Cited by 6
“Islamic religious education is the spotlight that is responsible for moral and ethical problems in today's society (Awad et al., 2018; Bagheri et al., 2019).”
BackgroundAI - Limits and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence
Klimczak, P., & Petersen, C. (2023) · AI critique · doi:10.1515/9783839457320 · Cited by 7
Herzog, C., Leinweber, N.-A., Engelhard, S. A., et al. (2022) · IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) · doi:10.1109/istas55053.2022.10227124 · Cited by 2
“, based on the trolley problem, is certainly meaningful [4]–[6], considering the implementation specific ethics of (semi-)autonomous vehicles in rather mundane situations is highly relevant and needs to be considered by developing teams from the very beginning [7], [8].”
BackgroundGao, X., Luan, T., Li, X., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) · doi:10.1109/itsc57777.2023.10422393 · Cited by 2
“These include a pedestrian protection scenario, a scenario featuring single-attribute pedestrians, and one incorporating complex-attribute pedestrians [17].”
BackgroundInfluentialSerafim, M. C., Correa, A., Ames, M. C. F. D. C., & Pansera, D. (2024) · Scripta Theologica · doi:10.15581/006.56.2.467-502 · Cited by 3
Thought Experiments in Design Ethics
Buwert, P., & Sinclair, M. A. (2024) · Temes de disseny · doi:10.46467/tdd40.2024.54-73 · Cited by 2
Γράφοντας τον αλγόριθμο του Καλού: Η Τεχνητή Νοημοσύνη ως μηχανή απόδοσης Δικαιοσύνης
Gounaris, A., & Κωστελέτος, Γ. (2024) · Ηθική Περιοδικό φιλοσοφίας · doi:10.12681/ethiki.39654 · Cited by 1
Ethical Algorithms in Autonomous Vehicles: Reflections on a Workshop
Evans, N. G. (2020) · Lecture notes in mobility · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52840-9_15 · Cited by 2
Neuro-Computational Foundations of Moral PreferencesPreprint
Ugazio, G., Grueschow, M., Polanía, R., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/801936 · Cited by 2
Speciesism in everyday languagePreprint
Leach, S., Kitchin, A. P., Sutton, R. M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ktvgx · Cited by 2
Kopecký, R., Košová, M. J., Novotný, D. D., et al. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/36vzk · Cited by 2
Algorithm Fairness in AI for Medicine and HealthcarePreprint
Chen, R. J., Chen, T., Lipková, J., Wang, J. J., Williamson, D. F. K., Lu, M. Y., Sahai, S., & Mahmood, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.00603 · Cited by 31
“…particular recently becoming central issues in the distribution of justice in governance 34,35 , diversity hiring in recruitment, the development of moral machines in autonomous vehicles 36 , and now the increasing deployment of AI algorithms in software medical devices and healthcare systems 37 .”
BackgroundInnocence over utilitarianism - Heightened Moral Standards for Robots in Rescue Dilemmas PREPRINTPreprint
Sundvall, J. R. I., Drosinou, M., Hannikainen, I. R., Elovaara, K., Halonen, J., Herzon, V., Kopecký, R., Košová, M. J., Koverola, M., Kunnari, A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2p3ke · Cited by 2
Moral responses to the COVID-19 crisisPreprint
Navajas, J., Heduan, F. Á., Garbulsky, G., Tagliazucchi, E., Dan Ariely, C., & Sigman, M. (2020) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ktv6z · Cited by 3
Loesche, F., & Torre, I. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.23696-1 · Cited by 2
Why do we need Norm Sensitive Design? A WEIRD critique of value sensitive approaches to designPreprint
Martin, D. A., Clancy, R. F., Zhu, Q., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2377357/v1 · Cited by 2
Prével, A., Salatino, A., & Bue, S. L. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202203.0070.v2 · Cited by 1
Stuart, M. T. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_59 · Cited by 2
Interaction‐Centered Design: An Enduring Strategy and Methodology for Sociotechnical Systems
Hou, M., Fang, S. X., Wang, W., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119863663.ch12 · Cited by 2
Borsci, S., Lehtola, V., Nex, F., Yang, M. Y., Augustijn, E.-W., Bagheriye, L., Brüne, C., Kounadi, O., Li, J. J., Moreira, J., et al. (2023) · doi:10.32920/23808690 · Cited by 2
Introduction to Applied Affective Computing
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502400 · Cited by 1
Emotion Recognition in the Wild
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502404 · Cited by 2
The Ethics of Crashing: Defending the Order Ethics Approach
Müller, J. F., & Gogoll, J. (2022) · Wirtschaftsethik in der globalisierten Welt · doi:10.1007/978-3-476-05845-4_10 · Cited by 1
Kantian moral universalism, the “Enlightenment Project” and experimental ethics
Юрьевич, П. В. (2023) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202316103006 · Cited by 1
“As a result, “the four most spared characters are the baby, the little girl, the little boy, and the pregnant woman” (Awad et al., 2018, p. 60).”
BackgroundData Ethics and Data Science: An Uneasy Marriage?
Keymolen, E., & Taylor, L. (2021) · Classroom companion: business · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19554-9_20 · Cited by 6
Mitigating Voter Attribute Bias for Fair Opinion Aggregation
Ueda, R., Takeuchi, K., & Kashima, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604660 · Cited by 1
Moral Learning by Algorithms: The Possibility of Developing Morally Intelligent Technology
Marzá, D. G., & Calvo, P. (2024) · Philosophy and politics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53015-9_6 · Cited by 1
Should My Agent Lie for Me? Public Moral Perspectives on Deceptive AI
Sarkadi, Ş., Mei, P., & Awad, E. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56255-6_9 · Cited by 2
Self-citationRuleGLM: An Ethics Evaluation Framework with Knowledge Vector Space
Li, C., Liu, C., & Wu, W. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5669-8_38 · Cited by 1
Ryu, J., & Yoon, Y.-I. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3677333.3678268 · Cited by 1
Social Cognition of Moral Judgment
Conway, P. J. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197763414.013.27 · Cited by 1
Ethical Alignment in Citizen-Centric AI
Deshmukh, J., Yazdanpanah, V., Stein, S., & Norman, T. J. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-0128-8_4 · Cited by 1
“For example, in the driving context, people have different ethical preferences regarding saving the lives of people of different age groups, professions, genders etc. [9].”
Depaz, P. (2024) · A Peer-Reviewed Journal About · doi:10.7146/aprja.v13i1.151234 · Cited by 1
The autonomous vehicle dilemma: passenger(s) versus pedestrian(s)
Bovesi, A., Calabretto, A., Stroppa, A., Adamo, G. M., Canepa, F., & Guidi, S. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2433037 · Cited by 3
“For example, in (Awad 2017; Awad et al. 2018; Rhim, Lee, and Lee 2020), participants from indi-vidualistic cultures (e.g. United States of America, Canada, Australia, and some Western European countries) showed a stronger preference for saving the greater number of lives (utilitarianism) compared…”
InfluentialIMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AI ON CONSUMER BUYING DECISION
Kumari, A., & Thakur, P. (2025) · EPRA International Journal of Economic and Business Review · doi:10.36713/epra19925 · Cited by 2
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Data on Political Power and Geopolitical Equilibria
Bellini, P., Campanella, E., & Piccioni, A. (2024) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73514-1_3 · Cited by 1
Nanoethics for the Plastocene: the value sensitive design of nanofiber materials
Trčka, M., Stöckelová, T., Lukáš, D., et al. (2025) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2025.2476245 · Cited by 1
Rathore, H., Jasti, P. C., & Griffith, H. (2025) · IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference · doi:10.1109/ccnc54725.2025.10976190 · Cited by 1
“Inanother study [7], the authors employed the Moral Machine framework [12] to examine the ethical decision-making patterns of LLMs for autonomous vehicles.”
Introduction: Exploring Chinese Ethical and Legal Perspectives on Automated Vehicles
Ding, C., & Fan, R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-1277-2_1 · Cited by 1
Morality on the road: the ADC model in low-stakes traffic vignettes
Pflanzer, M., Cecchini, D., Cacace, S. C., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1508763 · Cited by 1
The limits of large language models and the necessity of human cognition in K-12 education
Yoo, J., & Scribner, C. F. (2025) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405841.2025.2528553 · Cited by 2
“Similarly, research on artificial moral agents (AMAs) also suggests the potential for training machines to respond ethically using scenario-based learning and moral principles (Awad et al., 2018).”
Takamatsu, R. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2531285 · Cited by 2
“These dilemmas were adapted from previous studies (Awad et al., 2018; Bruno et al., 2023).”
Artificial Intelligence Awareness Scale Development Study
Kaya, Ş. M., & Bayram, V. (2025) · OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1680531 · Cited by 4
Ethical and legal aspects of using combat robots
Kowalczuk, Z., & Zieliński, C. (2025) · IFAC-PapersOnLine · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.07.025 · Cited by 1
Value-aligned but misguided: a dilemma in AI and AGI decision making
Song, Z. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05232-y · Cited by 1
“The experiment found that the strongest preferences observed were for sparing humans over animals, sparing more lives, and sparing young lives (Awad et al., 2018).”
Bibliometric analysis: Ethics in Artificial Intelligence Research Production
Ramsaroop, N. (2025) · Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS) · doi:10.1109/ictas64866.2025.11155741 · Cited by 1
Ethical Challenges of the IA in Byung Chul Han’s Theory
Pedreros, P. A. M., & Pajajoy, M. J. S. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-97907-1_23 · Cited by 1
Rahman, M. M., Alshakhsi, S. A. A., Babiker, A., Yankouskaya, A., Liebherr, M., & Ali, R. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06164-5_25 · Cited by 3
People can find their true selves outside moral pursuits
Wylie, J., Lindauer, M., & Gantman, A. P. (2025) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106325 · Cited by 1
Visual Moral Inference and Communication
Zhu, W., Ramezani, A., & Xu, Y. (2025) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.70031 · Cited by 2
“…Hoover et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2021; Xie, Hirst, & Xu, 2020) pertaining to critical issues ranging from moral decision-making in autonomous vehicles (Awad et al., 2018) to alignment of AI and humans in cultural moral norms and values (Ramezani & Xu, 2023; Tao, Viberg, Baker, & Kizilcec, 2024).”
International Governance of AI
Chinen, M. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3658-0_83 · Cited by 1
Kochupillai, M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-97445-8_4 · Cited by 1
Xing, Y., He, Y., & Zeng, L. (2025) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124445 · Cited by 1
Białek, M., Milczarski, W., Borkowska, A., et al. (2025) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728925100837 · Cited by 1
“As researchers like Awad et al. (2018) or Graham et al., (2013) attempt to develop universally acceptable moral codes, the language of assessment emerges as a critical methodological factor that can significantly influence results and potentially lead to misunderstandings.”
Fair or flawed? Rethinking grant review with generative AI
Sikimić, V. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05366-z · Cited by 2
“This was shown in the Moral Machine Experiment (Awad et al., 2018).”
Cultural Differences in Effect Sizes of the Color-Word Stroop Test: A Meta-Analytic Study
Otsuka, S., Ueda, Y., & Saiki, J. (2025) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/00220221251389109 · Cited by 2
“cultures are influenced by culture not only in higher-order cognition, such as memory, reasoning, self-concept, and ethical and moral judgments (Awad et al., 2018, 2020; Buchtel & Norenzayan, 2008; Choi et al., 1999; Gutchess et al., 2006; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Norenzayan et al., 2002; Paige et…”
Human at the Center: A Framework for Human‐Driven AI Development
Hu, D., Acosta-Navas, D., Gaube, S., Mozannar, H., Taylor, M. E., Dvijotham, K., & Bondi, E. (2025) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.70043 · Cited by 2
How AI can make us more moral: capturing and applying common sense morality
Kallay, H. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00883-6 · Cited by 1
Out-group/in-group personal moral dilemmas in the Kogi worldview
Cáceres, R. G. A., & Serrano, J. F. M. (2025) · Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science · doi:10.1007/s41809-025-00190-w · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I.
- Affiliations
- MIT Media Lab (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Shariff, Azim
- Bonnefon, Jean-François
- Rahwan, Iyad
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2018-10-24
- Volume
- 563
- Issue
- 7729
- Pages
- 59-64
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2896252141
- Cited by
- 1,859
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 214 · 2025: 263 · 2024: 222 · 2023: 270 · 2022: 273 · 2021: 263 · 2020: 223 · 2019: 120 · 2018: 10
- FWCI
- 91.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0010, ANR-10-LABX-0029)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, machine ethics, ethical dilemmas, ethical preferences, cross-cultural variation, individual differences, demographic variation, modern institutions, cultural characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Accidents, Traffic, Pedestrians, Artificial Intelligence, Data Collection, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Morals, Public Opinion, Robotics, Translating, Motor Vehicles, Internet, Internationality, Harm Reduction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
