Advertisement

Using the Double Transparency of Autonomous Vehicles to Increase Fairness and Social Welfare

  • Jie XuEmail author
  • Min Ding
Research Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) create double transparency regarding human driving decisions. Opaque decision rules in the human mind have become transparent in AVs, and in turn, can be made transparent to third parties. This double transparency is creating an unprecedented opportunity to regulate driving decision rules to eliminate unreasonable selfishness and increase fairness and social welfare because AVs can be programmed to follow regulations 100% of the time. In this experimental ethics study, we performed an incentive aligned online experiment to examine humans’ willingness to sacrifice other people’s lives to protect their own in five different accident scenarios and to investigate the potential for AV regulation to curb unreasonable selfishness, thereby increasing fairness and social welfare. Our results reveal the need to regulate rules governing AV driving decisions; yet, a full transparency policy for decision algorithms may not necessarily lead to desired social effects. Thus, regulations should be tailored to different scenarios.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles Transparency Fairness Social welfare Ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge support through Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth, School of Management, Fudan University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study via electronic signatures in the survey and possible consequences of the studies were explained.

Supplementary material

40547_2019_93_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (179 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 179 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    10 CFR 1047.7 - Use of deadly force. (n.d.) “Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7. Accessed August 2018
  2. 2.
    Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352(6293):1573–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Q J Econ 127(1):1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Union, (2018)“General data protection regulation” (regulation (EU) 2016/679)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transport Res Part A: Policy and Practice 77:167–181Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federal Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, (2017) “Ethics commission on automated and connected driving presents report,” (BMVI)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauser JR, (2015) Testimony in the matter of determination of loyalty rates for digital performance in sound recordings and ephemeral recordings (WEB IV, No. 14-CRB-0001-WR, 23)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    House of lords select committee on artificial intelligence, (2018) “ai in the UK: ready, willing and able?” (Report of Session 2017–19, 16)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McFadden DL, (2014) Testimony in the matter of determination of loyalty rates for digital performance in sound recordings and ephemeral recordings (WEB IV, No. 14-CRB-0001-WR)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mill JS, (2016) “Utilitarianism,” in Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy, S. Cahn, Ed. (Routledge), chap. VIIGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris DZ, (2016) “Mercedes-Benz’s self-driving cars would choose passenger lives over bystanders,” FortuneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh S, (2015) “Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey” (Traffic safety facts crash stats, rep. DOT HS 812 115, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The fully autonomous vehicles that we discuss in this paper are categorized as level 5, (2014) as defined by SAE International’s J3016 standard, issued in JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, (2017) “Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, v. 2” (IEEE)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, (2016) “Federal automated vehicles policy” (U. S. Department of Transportation, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, (2018) “Preparing for the future of transportation: automated vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0),” (U.S. Department of Transportation)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization, (WHO), “Road traffic injuries” (2018); http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries. [the easiest access to this source is via the URL]

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Smeal College of BusinessThe Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations