Who Should a Self-Driving Car Save?
O‘zi boshqariladigan mashina kimni qutqarishi kerak?
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Avtonom avtomobillarning axloqiy muammolari: “trolleybus muammosi”dan amaliy xavfsizlikkacha.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
Imagine a self-driving car travelling along a city street when its brakes suddenly fail. Ahead, five pedestrians are crossing the road. The car can either continue and kill them, or swerve onto the pavement, where it will kill a single passer-by. What should it be programmed to do? This scenario, a modern version of the philosophical thought experiment known as the “trolley problem”, has become the most widely discussed ethical question about autonomous vehicles. I want to argue that it is also, in important ways, the wrong question.
Shahar ko‘chasi bo‘ylab ketayotgan o‘zi boshqariladigan mashinaning tormozi birdan ishdan chiqqanini tasavvur qiling. Oldinda besh nafar piyoda yo‘lni kesib o‘tmoqda. Mashina yo to‘g‘ri davom etib ularni o‘ldirishi yoki bitta o‘tkinchini o‘ldiradigan piyodalar yo‘lagiga burilishi mumkin. U nima qilishga dasturlashtirilishi kerak? “Trolleybus muammosi” deb nomlanuvchi falsafiy fikriy tajribaning zamonaviy ko‘rinishi bo‘lgan bu ssenariy avtonom transport vositalari haqidagi eng ko‘p muhokama qilinadigan axloqiy savolga aylandi. Men bu ko‘p muhim jihatlarda noto‘g‘ri savol ekanini ham isbotlamoqchiman.
It is not that such dilemmas are meaningless. In 2018, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published the results of the “Moral Machine” experiment, an online platform that collected around forty million decisions about such scenarios from people in more than two hundred countries and territories. Some preferences were nearly universal: people generally preferred to spare humans over animals, more lives over fewer, and the young over the old. But there were also striking cultural variations, suggesting that there may be no single set of values that a car could be programmed to reflect.
Bunday dilemmalar ma’nosiz degani emas. 2018-yilda Massachusets texnologiya instituti tadqiqotchilari “Axloqiy mashina” tajribasi natijalarini e’lon qilishdi — bu ikki yuzdan ortiq mamlakat va hududdagi odamlardan bunday ssenariylar bo‘yicha qirq millionga yaqin qarorni to‘plagan onlayn platforma edi. Ba’zi afzalliklar deyarli universal edi: odamlar odatda hayvonlardan ko‘ra odamlarni, kamroq hayotdan ko‘ra ko‘proq hayotni va keksalardan ko‘ra yoshlarni saqlab qolishni afzal ko‘rishgan. Lekin hayratlanarli madaniy farqlar ham bor edi, bu esa mashinani aks ettirishga dasturlash mumkin bo‘lgan yagona qadriyatlar to‘plami bo‘lmasligi mumkinligini ko‘rsatadi.
Some governments have attempted to set principles. In 2017, an ethics commission in Germany produced guidelines stating, among other things, that in unavoidable accident situations, any distinction based on personal features such as age or gender is strictly prohibited. This seems morally sound, yet it directly contradicts the preference for sparing the young that the Moral Machine found in many countries. The tension illustrates how difficult it is to translate public intuitions into code.
Ba’zi hukumatlar tamoyillar belgilashga harakat qilgan. 2017-yilda Germaniyadagi axloq komissiyasi boshqa narsalar qatorida muqarrar avariya holatlarida yosh yoki jins kabi shaxsiy xususiyatlarga asoslangan har qanday farqlash qat’iyan taqiqlanadi, deb belgilaydigan yo‘riqnomalar ishlab chiqdi. Bu axloqan to‘g‘ri ko‘rinadi, lekin u “Axloqiy mashina” ko‘plab mamlakatlarda aniqlagan yoshlarni saqlab qolishni afzal ko‘rishga bevosita zid keladi. Bu ziddiyat jamoatchilik sezgilarini kodga aylantirish qanchalik qiyin ekanini ko‘rsatadi.
My concern, however, is that the fascination with trolley-style dilemmas distracts attention from more pressing ethical questions. Real accidents rarely involve a clean choice between two known groups of victims; they involve uncertainty, split-second sensing errors and situations that could have been avoided much earlier. The most important ethical decisions about autonomous vehicles are therefore not about whom to sacrifice in a crash but about how much risk is acceptable in normal driving: how fast the car should travel near schools, how cautiously it should behave in poor visibility, and how much testing is required before it is allowed onto public roads.
Biroq mening xavotirim shundaki, trolleybus uslubidagi dilemmalarga mahliyo bo‘lish e’tiborni yanada dolzarb axloqiy savollardan chalg‘itadi. Haqiqiy avariyalar kamdan-kam hollarda qurbonlarning ikkita ma’lum guruhi o‘rtasidagi aniq tanlovni o‘z ichiga oladi; ular noaniqlik, bir lahzalik sezish xatolari va ancha oldinroq oldini olish mumkin bo‘lgan vaziyatlarni o‘z ichiga oladi. Shuning uchun avtonom transport vositalari haqidagi eng muhim axloqiy qarorlar avariyada kimni qurbon qilish haqida emas, balki oddiy haydashda qancha xavf maqbul ekani haqida: maktablar yaqinida mashina qanchalik tez yurishi, yomon ko‘rinishda qanchalik ehtiyotkor harakat qilishi va jamoat yo‘llariga chiqishiga ruxsat berishdan oldin qancha sinov talab qilinishi haqida.
These questions are not hypothetical. In 2018, a pedestrian in Arizona was killed by a test vehicle operating in self-driving mode, the first such death recorded. Investigators found that the system had detected the woman several seconds before the collision but had repeatedly failed to classify her correctly, and that an emergency braking function had been disabled to provide a smoother ride. The human safety driver, meanwhile, had been looking at a phone. The tragedy resulted not from an impossible moral dilemma but from ordinary decisions about design, testing and supervision.
Bu savollar faraziy emas. 2018-yilda Arizonada o‘zi boshqariladigan rejimda ishlayotgan sinov mashinasi piyodani urib o‘ldirdi — bu qayd etilgan birinchi shunday o‘lim edi. Tergovchilar tizim ayolni to‘qnashuvdan bir necha soniya oldin aniqlagan, lekin uni qayta-qayta to‘g‘ri tasniflay olmaganini va ravonroq harakat uchun favqulodda tormozlash funksiyasi o‘chirib qo‘yilganini aniqlashdi. Xavfsizlik bo‘yicha inson haydovchi esa shu paytda telefoniga qarab turgan edi. Fojia imkonsiz axloqiy dilemmadan emas, balki dizayn, sinov va nazorat bo‘yicha oddiy qarorlardan kelib chiqdi.
There is also a broader question of comparison. Human drivers kill more than a million people on the world’s roads every year, the great majority through distraction, fatigue, speeding and alcohol. If autonomous vehicles could reduce this toll substantially, delaying their introduction would itself have a moral cost. On the other hand, the public is likely to judge machine errors far more harshly than human ones, and trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.
Kengroq taqqoslash masalasi ham bor. Inson haydovchilar har yili dunyo yo‘llarida bir milliondan ortiq odamni o‘ldiradi, ularning katta qismi chalg‘ish, charchoq, tezlikni oshirish va spirtli ichimliklar tufayli. Agar avtonom transport vositalari bu qurbonlarni sezilarli darajada kamaytira olsa, ularni joriy etishni kechiktirishning o‘zi axloqiy xarajatga ega bo‘lardi. Boshqa tomondan, jamoatchilik mashina xatolarini inson xatolaridan ancha qattiqroq baholashi mumkin va bir marta yo‘qotilgan ishonchni qayta tiklash qiyin.
The trolley problem, then, is a useful teaching tool but a poor guide to policy. The ethics of self-driving cars will be decided less in dramatic moments of unavoidable choice than in thousands of mundane engineering and regulatory decisions, made long before any crash occurs. Those are the decisions that deserve our scrutiny.
Shunday qilib, trolleybus muammosi foydali o‘qitish vositasi, lekin siyosat uchun yomon yo‘lboshchi. O‘zi boshqariladigan mashinalar axloqi muqarrar tanlovning dramatik lahzalarida emas, balki har qanday avariya sodir bo‘lishidan ancha oldin qabul qilinadigan minglab oddiy muhandislik va tartibga solish qarorlarida hal qilinadi. Aynan shu qarorlar bizning sinchkov e’tiborimizga loyiq.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the writer’s main argument?
-
2 What did the Moral Machine experiment reveal?
-
3 Why does the writer mention the German guidelines?
-
4 What does the Arizona case show, according to the writer?
-
5 Why might delaying autonomous vehicles have a moral cost?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 An emergency braking function had been switched off in the Arizona vehicle.
-
2 The Arizona vehicle detected the pedestrian before the collision.
-
3 Most road deaths caused by humans are due to mechanical failures.
-
4 German guidelines forbid distinguishing between victims by age.
-
5 The writer argues that real accidents usually involve a clear choice between two groups.
-
6 Self-driving taxis already operate in Tashkent.
-
7 The Moral Machine was funded by a car company.
-
8 The Moral Machine collected about forty million decisions.
-
9 The writer believes the trolley problem is in important ways the wrong question.
-
10 People in the Moral Machine generally preferred to save animals over humans.
-
11 The safety driver in Arizona was sent to prison.
-
12 The writer thinks the public may judge machine errors more harshly.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.