跨8国调研发现自动驾驶风险伦理全球趋同
The global consensus on the risk management of autonomous driving
- 通过8国近1.1万参与者实验，对比不同文化下风险偏好
- 多数人更关注事故严重性而非仅降低概率，且各国差异极小
- 无国家给骑行者额外风险豁免，日常交通风险共识明确
车辆每一次行驶都会在道路使用者间重新分配风险。人类驾驶员凭直觉处理，而自动驾驶车辆则需要有意识的算法风险管控。但如何在道路使用者间分配交通风险？我们在8个文化背景不同的国家开展全球实验，近1.1万名参与者参与风险分配偏好比较。结果显示，不同文化区间的交通风险偏好极为相似：绝大多数参与者偏离‘最小化事故概率’原则，转而权衡事故发生的概率与严重程度。在国家层面，对事故概率与严重性的考量几乎无显著差异。此前在确定性碰撞场景中发现的自动驾驶社会困境，在所有国家的日常交通风险评估中均未显现。没有任何国家给予骑行者超出其高脆弱性的风险优待。总体而言，我们的结果表明，自动驾驶风险伦理的全球共识比碰撞伦理更容易达成。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries deviates from a guiding principle of minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios disappears in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations in all countries. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that a global consensus on the risk ethics of autonomous driving is easier to establish than on the ethics of crashing.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。