Reply to: Life and death decisions of autonomous vehicles
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Moral Machine results suggest people want AVs to treat people unequally, preferentially saving women, the young, and the rich over men, the old, and the poor.
“In general, results of the Moral Machine suggest that people want AVs to treat people unequally, preferentially killing some people over others. For example, results show that people prefer saving the lives of women, the young and the rich than the lives of men, the old, and the poor [155].”
From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [155]
The paper reports a strong preference for saving younger lives, but describes the preference for saving women as weak, with equality the most common explicit response (Abstract; page unavailable). It says scenario choices favored high-status over low-status characters, while users explicitly preferred equal treatment and would likely be unhappy if that bias were acted upon. Thus the claim overstates what the results show people want AVs to do. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 3 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- MIT Media Lab (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Shariff, Azim
- Bonnefon, Jean-François
- Rahwan, Iyad
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2020-03-04
- Volume
- 579
- Issue
- 7797
- Pages
- E3-E5
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3010608900
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Toulouse Capitole Publications (University Toulouse 1 Capitole) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0010, ANR-19-P3IA-0004, ANR-3IA)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, ethical decision-making, trolley problem, life and death decisions, stated preference experiment, conjoint analysis, causal inference, AI ethics
- MeSH terms
- Accidents, Traffic, Automobile Driving, Death, Humans
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.
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
