Machine Learning, Social Learning and the Governance of Self-Driving Cars
Open accessAbstract
Self-driving cars, a quintessentially ‘smart’ technology, are not born smart. The algorithms that control their movements are learning as the technology emerges. Self-driving cars represent a high-stakes test of the powers of machine learning, as well as a test case for social learning in technology governance. Society is learning about the technology while the technology learns about society. Understanding and governing the politics of this technology means asking ‘Who is learning, what are they learning and how are they learning?’ Focusing on the successes and failures of social learning around the much-publicized crash of a Tesla Model S in 2016, I argue that trajectories and rhetorics of machine learning in transport pose a substantial governance challenge. ‘Self-driving’ or ‘autonomous’ cars are misnamed. As with other technologies, they are shaped by assumptions about social needs, solvable problems, and economic opportunities. Governing these technologies in the public interest means improving social learning by constructively engaging with the contingencies of machine learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Promoters of explainable AI and other scientific and technological improvements tend to ignore the psychological, social, and political dimension of the interaction with AI, thereby running the risk of embracing technical solutionism.
“Promoters of 'explainable AI' and other scientific and technological improvements tend to ignore the psychological, social, and political dimension of the interaction with AI, thereby running the risk of embracing some form of 'technical solutionism' (Stilgoe, 2017), by which all the moral and social problem of human responsibility for the behaviour of artificial intelligence can be fixed simply”
From Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them (2021) · cites this paper as Stilgoe, 2017
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155 · see citing works
The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716679679 · Cited by 3,432 · see citing works
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017) · International Data Privacy Law · doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx005 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
The Social Control of Technology
Mayne, A. J. (1982) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/2634327 · Cited by 577 · see citing works
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017) · doi:10.31228/osf.io/97upg · Cited by 524 · see citing works
Virtual to Real Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving
Pan, X., You, Y., Wang, Z., & Lu, C. (2017) · Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2017 · doi:10.5244/c.31.11 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them
Santoni de Sio, F., & Mecacci, G. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x · Cited by 490 · see citing works
The Quandary in Data Protection and Rights to Privacy of AI Technology Adoption in Malaysia
Kamaruddin, S., Wan Rosli, W. R., Mohd Saufi, N. N., Mohammad, A. M., & Hamin, Z. (2021) · 2021 Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT) · doi:10.1109/i-pact52855.2021.9696803 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stilgoe, J.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stilgoe, Jack
- ORCID
- Stilgoe, Jack
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-56
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2607757716
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 59.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, machine learning, social learning, technology governance, algorithmic learning, transport policy, public interest
- MeSH terms
- Accidents, Traffic, Social Learning, Machine Learning, Humans, Technology, Motor Vehicles
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