Advertisement

Game Theory Formulation for Ethical Decision Making

  • Vladimir Estivill-CastroEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 95)

Abstract

The inclusion of autonomous robots among everyday human environments has suggested that these robots will be facing ethical decisions regarding trade-offs where machines will choose some human attributes over the attributes of other humans. We argue in this paper that on a regular instance, algorithms for such decisions should not only be deterministic but instead, the decision will be better framed as an optimal mixed strategy in the sense of Nash equilibria in game theory.

Keywords

Ethical dilemma Decision making Game theory Mixed strategies Autonomous vehicles 

References

  1. 1.
    Alaieri F, Vellino A (2016) Ethical decision making in robots: autonomy, trust and responsibility. In: Agah A, Cabibihan JJ, Howard AM, Salichs MA, He H (eds) Social robotics: 8th international conference, ICSR, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352(6293):1573–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Fabio U, et al (2017) Ethics commission automated and connected driving. Technical report, Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, Germany www.mbdi.de
  4. 4.
    Diestel R (1997) Graph theory. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dodig-Crnkovic G, Persson D (2008) Sharing moral responsibility with robots: a pragmatic approach. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference on tenth Scandinavian conference on artificial intelligence: SCAI 2008, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 165–168Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Govindan S, Wilson R (2003) A global Newton method to compute Nash equilibria. J Econ Theory 110(1):65–86MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greene JD (2016) Our driverless dilemma. Science 352(6293):1514–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall JS (2011) Ethics for machines. In: Anderson M, Anderson SL (eds) Machine ethics (Chap. 3). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kadar EE, Köszeghy A, Virk GS (2017) Safety and ethical concerns in mixed human-robot control of vehicles. In: Aldinhas Ferreira MI, Silva Sequeira J, Tokhi MO, Kadar EE, Virk GS (eds) A world with robots: international conference on robot ethics: ICRE 2015. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lemke CE, Howson JT (1964) Equilibrium points of bimatrix games. J SIAM 12(2):413–423MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore S (1999) Driverless cars should sacrifice their passengers for the greater good just not when I’m the passenger. The Conversation Media Group Ltd https://theconversation.com/driverless-cars-should-sacrifice-their-passengers-for-the-greater-good-just-not-when-im-the-passenger-61363
  12. 12.
    Myerson RB (1997) Game theory: analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in N-Person games. Natl Acad Sci USA 36(1):48–49. http://www.pnas.org/content/36/1/48.full.pdf+htmlMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porter R, Nudelman E, Shoham Y (2004) Simple search methods for finding a Nash equilibrium. In: McGuinness DL, Ferguson G (eds) AAAI-04, 19th national conference on artificial intelligence, 16th conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, AAAI/MIT Press, San Jose, California, pp 664–669Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org/
  16. 16.
    Rahwan I (2017) What moral decisions should driverless cars make? TED talks, TED.comGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savani R, von Stengel B (2004) Exponentially many steps for finding a nash equilibrium in a bimatrix game. In: FOCS-04, 45th annual ieee symposium on foundations of computer science. IEEE Computer Soc., pp 258–267Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheutz M, Malle BF (2014) Think and do the right thing - a plea for morally competent autonomous robots. In: 2014 IEEE international symposium on ethics in science, technology and engineering, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Stengel B (2002) Computing equilibria for two-person games. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory, vol 3 (Chap. 45). Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1723–1759Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winfield AFT, Blum C, Liu W (2014) Towards an ethical robot: internal models, consequences and ethical action selection. In: Mistry M, Leonardis A, Witkowski M, Melhuish C (eds) Advances in autonomous robotics systems - 15th Annual Conference, TAROS, vol 8717, Springer, LNCS, pp 85–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations