CLICK FOR MORE INF.
今日词条：Moral issues 伦理问题
Moral issues
With the emergence of autonomous automobiles there are various ethical issues arising. While morally, the introduction of autonomous vehicles to the mass market seems inevitable due to a reduction of crashes by up to 90% and their accessibility to disabled, elderly, and young passengers, there still remain some ethical issues that have not yet been fully solved. Those include, but are not limited to: the moral, financial, and criminal responsibility for crashes, the decisions a car is to make right before a (fatal) crash, privacy issues, and potential job loss.
伦理问题
无人车的出现会带来各种各样的的伦理问题。从道德上说，无人车能够使交通事故发生率降低90%，而且老幼及残疾人都可乘坐，它不可避免地将会进入大众市场。然而，一些对于无人车的伦理问题还没有完全得到解决，如撞车责任认定（包括道德、财力、违法等）、在（致命）车祸前能否正确决断、隐私问题和潜在的失业率问题。
There are different opinions on who should be held liable in case of a crash, in particular with people being hurt. Many experts see the car manufacturers themselves responsible for those crashes that occur due to a technical malfunction or misconstruction. Besides the fact that the car manufacturer would be the source of the problem in a situation where a car crashes due to a technical issue, there is another important reason why car manufacturers could be held responsible: it would encourage them to innovate and heavily invest into fixing those issues, not only due to protection of the brand image, but also due to financial and criminal consequences. However, there are also voices that argue those using or owning the vehicle should be held responsible since they know the risks involved in using such a vehicle. Experts suggest introducing a tax or insurances that would protect owners and users of autonomous vehicles of claims made by victims of an accident. Other possible parties that can be held responsible in case of a technical failure include software engineers that programmed the code for the autonomous operation of the vehicles, and suppliers of components of the AV.
有关事故问题，尤其是有人员伤亡的车祸，到底谁来负责还没有定论。很多专家表示车的生产商应负责，因为车辆的技术故障和错误理解导致的事故。还有另外一个重要原因就是：这样会促进生产商改进并花大力气投资修复相关问题以保证企业品牌，同时避免“破财”、“吃官司”。还有另一种说法：汽车的车主或使用人应该负责，他们用车时就该知道会有相关的危险。专家建议引入税收和保险机制，这样可以在受害人请求赔付时保证无人车车主或使用人的权益。如果是有技术故障引起的事故，其他团体组织也要负责，这些组织包括无人车软件编码工程师和无人车的元件供应商。
Taking aside the question of legal liability and moral responsibility, the question arises how autonomous vehicles should be programmed to behave in an emergency situation where either passengers or other traffic participants are endangered. A very visual example of the moral dilemma that a software engineer or car manufacturer might face in programming the operating software is described in an ethical thought experiment, the trolley problem: a conductor of a trolley has the choice of staying on the planned track and running over 5 people, or turn the trolley onto a track where it would kill only one person, assuming there is no traffic on it.There are two main considerations that need to be addressed. First, what moral basis would be used by an autonomous vehicle to make decisions? Second, how could those be translated into software code? Researchers have suggested, in particular, two ethical theories to be applicable to the behavior of autonomous vehicles in cases of emergency: deontology and utilitarianism. Asimov’s three laws of robotics are a typical example of deontological ethics. The theory suggests that an autonomous car needs to follow strict written-out rules that it needs to follow in any situation. Utilitarianism suggests the idea that any decision must be made based on the goal to maximize utility. This needs a definition of utility which could be maximizing the number of people surviving in a crash. Critics suggest that autonomous vehicles should adapt a mix of multiple theories to be able to respond morally right in the instance of a crash.
法律和道德问题放一边，有一个棘手的编程问题就很难解决：在保护乘客还是其他交通参与者的两难境地，该如何选择？比如，在一个有轨电车的伦理问题中：行驶的有轨电车司机有两个选择，保持原路会撞上5个人，换路线将会撞死1个人。换作是无人车，我们要考虑它的编程基于那种道德基础，另外如何将这些道德伦理进行编码？专家建议编程时，在紧急情况下尤其要考虑的两点---道义主义和功利主义。阿昔洛夫机器人三大定律是机器人道义主义的例证，机器人在任何情况下都要严格忠实于其编译规则。功利主义者认为任何决定都要基于利益最大化，在此问题中，就是指保证事故后的生存人数最大化。评论家建议无人车要综合多方理论，在这样的事件中做出合理反应。
Privacy-related issues arise mainly from the interconnectivity of autonomous cars, making it just another mobile device that can gather any information about an individual. This information gathering ranges from tracking of the routes taken, voice recording, video recording, preferences in media that is consumed in the car, behavioral patterns, to many more streams of information.
与隐私相关的问题主要来自自动驾驶汽车的互联性，这使得它是一种可以收集个人信息的移动设备。它对乘客的信息收集范围将非常广泛，包括从跟踪记录的路线、语音记录、视频记录、在汽车中使用的媒体偏好、行为模式、到更多的信息流。
The implementation of autonomous vehicles to the mass market might cost up to 5 million jobs in the US alone, making up almost 3% of the workforce. Those jobs include drivers of taxis, buses, vans, trucks, and e-hailing vehicles. Many industries, such as the auto insurance industry are indirectly affected. This industry alone generates an annual revenue of about $220 billions, supporting 277,000 jobs. To put this into perspective – this is about the number of mechanical engineering jobs. The potential loss of a majority of those jobs due to an estimated decline of accidents by up to 90% will have a tremendous impact on those individuals involved. Both India and China have placed bans on automated cars with the former citing protection of jobs.
无人车推广还会带来就业问题。据报道，它会导致美国五百万份工作流失，这意味着3%的人将要失业。司机行业受到重创，汽车保险行业也会间接受损。仅汽车保险行业每年的收入就高达220亿美元，支撑着277,000个工作岗位。
双语探究海内外，打造知识大百科
SCAN QR-CODE TO ACQUIRE MORE
