Effects of Individual Priorities on Ethical Decisions in Traffic Use of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Artificial intelligence, a software or computer program with a learning mechanism is used in many fields. In the present study, the aim was to determine the effect of individual priorities on ethical decisions in terms of the use of artificial intelligence in traffic, through scenarios created by using the Moral Machine, an online experimental platform designed to identify ethical dilemmas. A questionnaire consisting of three parts was used to collect the data. In the first part, socio-demographic characteristics were questioned. The second part included the Importance of Health Scale. In the last part, the participants were given 12 scenario examples of an unmanned vehicle moving in traffic with the illustrations, and they were asked what their decisions and justifications of their decisions were. The study population comprises 75 health care academicians in Çankırı University. It was observed that most of the participants preferred to protect a larger number of people rather than a small number of people, a woman rather than a man, a child rather than an adult, a physician rather than an adult who is not a physician. The scenarios created in the study contain more and more variables that should be considered. Therefore, as the scenarios continued, the participants had difficulty in making decisions. Artificial intelligence has become one of the problem clusters of bioethics due to the increase in its use in many areas directly related to human life, such as health, apart from traffic.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• Bioethics
• Individual priority
• Moral machine
• Traffic ethics

References

1. [1] Rouhiainen, L. Yapay Zeka, Geleceğimizle İlgili Bugün Bilmemiz Gereken 101 Şey [Artificial Intelligence: 101 Things] Çev.:Toprak Deniz Odabaşı, İstanbul, Pegasus Yayıncılık, 2020; 3.
2. [2] Birer G C. Yapay Zeka, [Artificial intelligence] Bilim ve Teknik, Ocak 2018; 51 (602): 26-35.
3. [3] Agrawal A, Gans J., Goldfarb, A. Geleceği Gören Makineler, Yapay Zeka Ekonomisine Giriş, [Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence] Çev.: Mustafa Ür-gen, Babil kitap, İstanbul, 2019, pp. 15-19.
4. [4] Choi RY, Coyner AS, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Chiang MF, Camp-bell JP. Introduction to machine learning, neural networks, and deep learning. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2020; 9 (2): 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.2.14
5. [5] Ak T, Çobanoğlu N. İnsansız Savaş Araçları ve Etik” [Un-manned Warfare Vehicles] Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2015; 6 (2): 13-25.
6. [6] Mahmutoğlu A, Çimen A, Çobanoğlu N. İnsan Odaklı Trafik Yönetimi Bağlamında Trafik Etiğinden Trafik Ahlakına Geçiş, [Transition from Traffic Ethics to Traffic Morality in the Con-text of Human-Centered Traffic Management] Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2012; (24): 427-461.
7. [7] Luetge C. The German ethics code for automated and connect-ed driving. philosophy and technology. 2017; 30(4): 547-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0284-0
8. [8] Awad E, Dsouza S, Kim R, Schulz J, Henrich J, Shariff A, Bonnefon J-F, Rahwan I. The Moral Machine experiment. Na-ture. 2018; 563: 59-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6

9. [9] Moral Machine, moralmachine.mit.edu, accessed date: 8.1.2022.
10. [10] Esin Özabacı M. N. Endüstriyel Alanda Çalışan İşçilerin Sağlık Davranışlarının Saptanması ve Geliştirilmesi. Promotion and determination of health behaviours of the workers who work in the industry, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Istanbul University Institute of Health Sciences] İstan-bul, 1999.
11. [11] Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, [Qualitative research methods in the social scienc-es] 12. Baskı, Tıpkı Basım, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2021; 67-77.
12. [12] Awad E, Dsouza S, Shariff S, Rahwan I, Bonnefon J-F. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 coun-tries by 70,000 participants. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences. 2020; 117 (5): 2332-2337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911517117
13. [13] Shariff A, Bonnefon J F, Rahwan I. Psychological road-blocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles. Nat Hum Behav. 2017; 1: 694–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0202-6
14. [14] Bonnefon J F, Shariff A, Rahwan I. The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles. Science. 2016; 352 (6293): 1573-1576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654
15. [15] Leonhard G. Teknolojiye Karşı İnsanlık, İnsan ile Makinenin Yaklaşım Çatışması, [Technology vs. Humanity], Çev.: Cihan Akkartal, İlker Akkartal, Siyah X Yayınevi, İstan-bul, 2018; 37: 161-176.