Recognition: unknown
Blaming humans in autonomous vehicle accidents: Shared responsibility across levels of automation
read the original abstract
When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered causally responsible for the harm, regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of shared control between a human and a machine, the blame and responsibility attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning AI components of semi-autonomous cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: a bottom-up regulatory scheme (which operates through tort law that is adjudicated through the jury system) could fail to properly regulate the safety of shared-control vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (enacted through federal laws) may be called for.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
AITP: Traffic Accident Responsibility Allocation via Multimodal Large Language Models
AITP is a new multimodal large language model that uses multimodal chain-of-thought and retrieval-augmented generation of legal knowledge to achieve state-of-the-art results on traffic accident responsibility allocati...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.