The transition to autonomous vehicles (AVs) is often marketed as a purely technical challenge—a matter of more sensors and better code. Yet, as we move closer to Level 5 autonomy, the conversation is shifting from software engineering to moral philosophy. The "trolley problem" is no longer a classroom thought experiment; it is a pending line of code.
If a self-driving car is faced with an unavoidable collision, how should it be programmed to prioritize life? Should it protect its own passengers at all costs, or should it minimize total casualties, even if that means harming the occupant? This creates a massive paradox in consumer behavior: while most people agree that an "altruistic" car (one that minimizes total harm) is the most ethical, very few are willing to purchase a vehicle programmed to sacrifice them in an emergency.
Furthermore, we must confront the issue of automation bias. As cars become more capable, human drivers become less attentive. This "middle ground" of semi-autonomy—where the car drives itself but requires a human to take over in a crisis—is perhaps the most dangerous phase of all. A human who hasn't touched the wheel in thirty minutes cannot effectively regain "situational awareness" in the half-second required to avoid a crash. The future of traffic depends not just on the car’s ability to drive, but on our ability to define the ethics of the ghost in the machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment