When is it right and good for an intelligent autonomous vehicle to take over control (and hand it back)?

Ajit Narayanan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1901.08221

When is it right and good for an intelligent autonomous vehicle to take over control (and hand it back)?

Ajit Narayanan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

There is much debate in machine ethics about the most appropriate way to introduce ethical reasoning capabilities into intelligent autonomous machines. Recent incidents involving autonomous vehicles in which humans have been killed or injured have raised questions about how we ensure that such vehicles have an ethical dimension to their behaviour and are therefore trustworthy. The main problem is that hardwiring such machines with rules not to cause harm or damage is not consistent with the notion of autonomy and intelligence. Also, such ethical hardwiring does not leave intelligent autonomous machines with any course of action if they encounter situations or dilemmas for which they are not programmed or where some harm is caused no matter what course of action is taken. Teaching machines so that they learn ethics may also be problematic given recent findings in machine learning that machines pick up the prejudices and biases embedded in their learning algorithms or data. This paper describes a fuzzy reasoning approach to machine ethics. The paper shows how it is possible for an ethics architecture to reason when taking over from a human driver is morally justified. The design behind such an ethical reasoner is also applied to an ethical dilemma resolution case. One major advantage of the approach is that the ethical reasoner can generate its own data for learning moral rules (hence, autometric) and thereby reduce the possibility of picking up human biases and prejudices. The results show that a new type of metric-based ethics appropriate for autonomous intelligent machines is feasible and that our current concept of ethical reasoning being largely qualitative in nature may need revising if want to construct future autonomous machines that have an ethical dimension to their reasoning so that they become moral machines.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ajit Narayanan. 2019-01-24. When is it right and good for an intelligent autonomous vehicle to take over control (and hand it back)?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08221

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗