PreprintCited by 376Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

Machine Learning, Social Learning and the Governance of Self-Driving Cars

Open access
Stilgoe, Jack·2017·Social Studies of Science

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.2937316

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stilgoe, J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
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
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