Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles. / Liu, Hin-Yan.

In: Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2017, p. 193-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Liu, H-Y 2017, 'Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles', Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 193-207.

APA

Liu, H-Y. (2017). Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(3), 193-207.

Vancouver

Liu H-Y. Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology. 2017;19(3):193-207.

Author

Liu, Hin-Yan. / Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles. In: Ethics and Information Technology. 2017 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 193-207.

Bibtex

@article{ed703c7b5a844698923914f32681a3ee,
title = "Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles",
abstract = "With their prospect for causing both novel and known forms of damage, harm and injury, the issue of responsibility has been a recurring theme in the debate concerning autonomous vehicles. Yet, the discussion of responsibility has obscured the finer details both between the underlying concepts of responsibility, and their application to the interaction between human beings and artificial decision-making entities. By developing meaningful distinctions and examining their ramifications, this article contributes to this debate by refining the underlying concepts that together inform the idea of responsibility. Two different approaches are offered to the question of responsibility and autonomous vehicles: targeting and risk distribution. The article then introduces a thought experiment which situates autonomous vehicles within the context of crash optimisation impulses and coordinated or networked decision-making. It argues that guiding ethical frameworks overlook compound or aggregated effects which may arise, and which can lead to subtle forms of structural discrimination. Insofar as such effects remain unrecognised by the legal systems relied upon to remedy them, the potential for societal inequalities is increased and entrenched, situations of injustice and impunity may be unwittingly maintained. This second set of concerns may represent a hitherto overlooked type of responsibility gap arising from inadequate accountability processes capable of challenging systemic risk displacement.",
author = "Hin-Yan Liu",
note = "Please access here: http://rdcu.be/vdfV",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "193--207",
journal = "Ethics and Information Technology",
issn = "1388-1957",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles

AU - Liu, Hin-Yan

N1 - Please access here: http://rdcu.be/vdfV

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - With their prospect for causing both novel and known forms of damage, harm and injury, the issue of responsibility has been a recurring theme in the debate concerning autonomous vehicles. Yet, the discussion of responsibility has obscured the finer details both between the underlying concepts of responsibility, and their application to the interaction between human beings and artificial decision-making entities. By developing meaningful distinctions and examining their ramifications, this article contributes to this debate by refining the underlying concepts that together inform the idea of responsibility. Two different approaches are offered to the question of responsibility and autonomous vehicles: targeting and risk distribution. The article then introduces a thought experiment which situates autonomous vehicles within the context of crash optimisation impulses and coordinated or networked decision-making. It argues that guiding ethical frameworks overlook compound or aggregated effects which may arise, and which can lead to subtle forms of structural discrimination. Insofar as such effects remain unrecognised by the legal systems relied upon to remedy them, the potential for societal inequalities is increased and entrenched, situations of injustice and impunity may be unwittingly maintained. This second set of concerns may represent a hitherto overlooked type of responsibility gap arising from inadequate accountability processes capable of challenging systemic risk displacement.

AB - With their prospect for causing both novel and known forms of damage, harm and injury, the issue of responsibility has been a recurring theme in the debate concerning autonomous vehicles. Yet, the discussion of responsibility has obscured the finer details both between the underlying concepts of responsibility, and their application to the interaction between human beings and artificial decision-making entities. By developing meaningful distinctions and examining their ramifications, this article contributes to this debate by refining the underlying concepts that together inform the idea of responsibility. Two different approaches are offered to the question of responsibility and autonomous vehicles: targeting and risk distribution. The article then introduces a thought experiment which situates autonomous vehicles within the context of crash optimisation impulses and coordinated or networked decision-making. It argues that guiding ethical frameworks overlook compound or aggregated effects which may arise, and which can lead to subtle forms of structural discrimination. Insofar as such effects remain unrecognised by the legal systems relied upon to remedy them, the potential for societal inequalities is increased and entrenched, situations of injustice and impunity may be unwittingly maintained. This second set of concerns may represent a hitherto overlooked type of responsibility gap arising from inadequate accountability processes capable of challenging systemic risk displacement.

UR - http://rdcu.be/vdfV

M3 - Journal article

VL - 19

SP - 193

EP - 207

JO - Ethics and Information Technology

JF - Ethics and Information Technology

SN - 1388-1957

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 182358328