评论
打印
This is a thought experiment.
这是一个思想实验。
Let's say at some point in the not so distant future,
假定在不久的将来，
you're barreling down the highway in your self-driving car, and you find yourself boxed in on all sides by other cars.
你坐在你的无人驾驶汽车里面在高速公路上飞驰，这时候你发现你周围全是车。
Suddenly, a large, heavy object falls off the truck in front of you.
突然，一个巨大且沉重的物体从你前面的卡车上掉下来。
Your car can't stop in time to avoid the collision, so it needs to make a decision:
你的车来不及刹车来避免碰撞，因此它必须做一个决定：
go straight and hit the object, swerve left into an SUV, or swerve right into a motorcycle.
继续往前然后撞在这个物体上，迅速往左撞向一辆SUV，或迅速往右撞向一辆摩托车。
Should it prioritize your safety by hitting the motorcycle, minimize danger to others by not swerving,
你的车应该以你的安全为重从而撞向摩托车吗，还是为了最大程度地降低危险，不迅速转弯，
even if it means hitting the large object and sacrificing your life,
虽然这意味着它要撞上那个巨大的物体，并可能牺牲掉你的性命，
or take the middle ground by hitting the SUV, which has a high passenger safety rating?
亦或是应该选择中间道路，撞向SUV，因为SUV的安全性能较高？
So what should the self-driving car do?
无人驾驶汽车应该怎么做呢？
If we were driving that boxed in car in manual mode,
这种情况下，如果我们掌握着方向盘，
whichever way we'd react would be understood as just that, a reaction, not a deliberate decision.
不管我们怎么做，都会被理解为瞬间的反应，而不是经过深思熟虑的决定。
It would be an instinctual panicked move with no forethought or malice.
我们是在惊恐之下做出本能反应，并未深谋远虑或怀揣恶意。
But if a programmer were to instruct the car to make the same move, given conditions it may sense in the future,
但是如果一个程序员要指令这个车在未来的特定情况下做出某一决定，
well, that looks more like premeditated homicide.
这听上去有点像蓄意谋杀啊。
Now, to be fair, self-driving cars are are predicted to dramatically reduce traffic accidents and fatalities
不过话说回来，无人驾驶汽车预计可以大大减少交通事故和死亡率，
by removing human error from the driving equation.
因为这中间避免了人类会犯的错误。
Plus, there may be all sorts of other benefits:
而且，还有很多其他的潜在好处：
eased road congestion, decreased harmful emissions, and minimized unproductive and stressful driving time.
不再拥堵的路面，汽车尾气排放的减少，以及没有了开车的浪费时间和压力。
But accidents can and will still happen, and when they do,
但是交通意外肯定还是会发生，当它们发生时，
their outcomes may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.
意外的后果可能在很久以前就已经被程序员或政策制定者设定好了。
And they'll have some difficult decisions to make.
这些决定可不好做。
It's tempting to offer up general decision-making principles, like minimize harm
我们倾向于提供笼统的指导决定的原则，比如最小化伤害，
but even that quickly leads to morally murky decisions.
但是这很快也会导致道德上模棱两可的决定。
For example, let's say we have the same initial set up,
举个例子，假定前面的情况一致，
but now there's a motorcyclist wearing a helmet to your left and another one without a helmet to your right.
但是这时候你的左边是一个戴着头盔骑摩托车的人，而你的右边是一个没戴头盔骑摩托车的人。
Which one should your robot car crash into?
你的无人驾驶汽车应该撞哪个？
If you say the biker with the helmet because she's more likely to survive,
如果说撞那个戴着头盔的人因为她的存活率更高，
then aren't you penalizing the responsible motorist?
你难道不是在惩罚那个更负责任的骑摩托车者吗？
If, instead, you save the biker without the helmet because he's acting irresponsibly,
反之，如果说撞那个没戴头盔的人是因为不戴头盔是不负责任的行为，
then you've gone way beyond the initial design principle about minimizing harm,
但是这样你就彻底违反了原先的“最小化伤害”的原则，
and the robot car is now meting out street justice.
无人驾驶汽车现在在主持公路正义了。
The ethical considerations get more complicated here.
道德的问题还要复杂得多。
In both of our scenarios, the underlying design is functioning as a targeting algorithm of sorts.
两种情况下，其背后的设计都是基于某种目标算法。
In other words, it's systematically favoring or discriminating against a certain type of object to crash into.
换句话说，它系统地倾向，或者说歧视某一类特定目标。
And the owners of the target vehicles will suffer the negative consequences of this algorithm through no fault of their own.
而目标车辆的车主就得承担这一算法的消极后果，虽然他们自己并没有犯任何错。
Our new technologies are opening up many other novel ethical dilemmas.
这些最新的科技还引起了其他的道德困境。
For instance, if you had to choose between a car that would always save as many lives as possible in an accident,
比如，如果你从以下两辆车中选择--一辆在事故发生时总是试图拯救尽可能多的生命的车，
or one that would save you at any cost, which would you buy?
和一辆不顾一切拯救你的车，你会买哪一辆？
What happens if the cars start analyzing and factoring in the passengers of the cars and the particulars of their lives?
如果汽车开始分析并考虑车里的乘客以及他们的生存概率，情况又会怎样？
Could it be the case that a random decision is still better than a predetermined one designed to minimize harm?
一个随机的决定会不会还是比一个以“最小化伤害”为原则事先设计的决定更好？
And who should be making all of these decisions anyhow? Programmers? Companies? Governments?
谁又应该做这些决定呢？程序员？公司？政府？
Reality may not play out exactly like our thought experiments, but that's not the point.
现实可能跟我们的思想实验有所出入，但是这不重要。
They're designed to isolate and stress test our intuitions on ethics,
思想实验的目的是对我们的道德本能进行分离和压力测试，
just like science experiments do for the physical world.
就像物理世界的科学实验一样。
Spotting these moral hairpin turns now will help us maneuver the unfamiliar road of technology ethics,
现在识别这些道德的急转弯能帮助我们更好地掌控科技及其道德问题的未知之路，
and allow us to cruise confidently and conscientiously into our brave new future.
并让我们充满信心和正义地驶向我们的勇敢、崭新的未来。
