www.moralmachine.net Open in urlscan Pro
52.86.95.224  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

eye-blocked robot goodgeek
Toggle navigation
 * Home
 * Judge
 * Classic
 * Design
 * Browse
 * About
 * Feedback
 * En

 

 
Welcome to the Moral Machine! A platform for gathering a human perspective on
moral decisions made by machine intelligence, such as self-driving cars.

We show you moral dilemmas, where a driverless car must choose the lesser of two
evils, such as killing two passengers or five pedestrians. As an outside
observer, you judge which outcome you think is more acceptable. You can then see
how your responses compare with those of other people.

If you’re feeling creative, you can also design your own scenarios, for you and
other users to browse, share, and discuss.
  Start Judging
  Browse Scenarios
  View Instructions



×


INSTRUCTIONS

This website has three main functional interfaces that can be accessed from the
menu bar.

JUDGE

You will be presented with random moral dilemmas that a machine is facing. For
example, a self-driving car, which does not need to have passengers in it. The
car can sense the presence and approximate identification of pedestrians on the
road ahead of it, as well as of any passengers who may be in the car.

The car also detects that the brakes failed, leaving it with two options: keep
going and hit the pedestrians ahead of it, or swerve and hit the pedestrians on
the other lane. Some scenarios will include the case of a non-empty car; in
those cases, one of the two lanes have a barrier that can be crashed into,
affecting all passengers. One or two pedestrian signals may also be included in
a given scenario, changing the legality of a pedestrian's position on their
respective lane.

You are outside the scene, watching it from above. Nothing will happen to you.
You have control over choosing what the car should do. You can express your
choice by clicking on one of the two choices in front of you. In each of the two
possible outcomes, the affected characters will be visually marked with the
symbol of a skull, a medical cross, or a question mark to signal what will
happen to this character, corresponding to death, injury, or an uncertain
outcome, respectively.

You may proceed from scenario to scenario by selecting the outcome you feel is
most acceptable by you. This can be done by clicking the outcome of your choice,
which will be highlighted when you hover your cursor over it. A button below
each outcome depiction will let you toggle the display of a textual summary of
the outcome that you can read. A counter at the top right will let you know your
progress in the sequence of scenarios.

Upon finishing all the scenarios, you will see a summary of the aggregated trend
in your responses in the session of the game you just played, compared to the
aggregated responses of other players, along several different dimensions. You
may "Share" or "Link" your results using the corresponding buttons, and/or play
another scenario sequence by clicking "More".

DESIGN

Additionally, you may try to create a new scenario yourself. You will first be
asked to choose whether you want to have the dilemma be between two sets of
pedestrians, or, if between pedestrians and passengers, whether the self-driving
car will have to swerve to save the passengers or pedestrians. You can then
choose to add legal complications in the form of a pedestrian signal.

Finally, you can choose characters to add to each possible location in the
scenario. The default fate for the characters who crash or are hit is death, but
you can change this using the dropdown for each location. Note that the fates of
impacted characters can be set independently for each character, even within the
same location.

You can reset the scenario creation interface at any time by clicking the "Start
Over" button on the left. Once you are done creating a scenario, and have given
it a creative title, you can submit it by clicking the “Submit” button on the
right. Once you do, your scenario will be added to the database of scenarios
created by users of the platform.

BROWSE

This interface lets you view the scenarios you and other users of this platform
have created. The scenarios are arranged chronologically; you can click "❮" or
"❯" to move ahead or back in this arrangement. Alternatively, you can click the
"Random" button to take you to any random scenario in the timeline. As with the
Judge interface, you are able to toggle the display of textual descriptions for
each outcome using the button below the respective outcome.

You can show your appreciation for particularly interesting scenarios by
clicking the "Like" button, and can "Share" or "Link" such scenarios using the
corresponding buttons. A discussion thread for each scenario is displayed below
the depiction of the scenario; we encourage you to participate.
×

THE COVID-19 CRISIS HAS REQUIRED PATIENTS IN THE MOST SERIOUS RESPIRATORY
CONDITIONS TO BE PUT ON A VENTILATOR THAT MECHANICALLY PUSHES AIR INTO THEIR
LUNGS. THIS IS USUALLY DONE WITH A TUBE THAT IS INSERTED INTO THEIR BODY THROUGH
THE PATIENT'S MOUTH. WHILE THE PATIENT IS ON A VENTILATOR, THEY ARE ALMOST
ALWAYS SEDATED AND SOMETIMES ALSO HAVE THEIR MUSCLES TEMPORARILY PARALYZED TO
PREVENT DISCOMFORT AND ATTEMPTS TO INSTINCTIVELY REMOVE THE VENTILATOR TUBE.
PATIENTS WHO ARE IN THIS SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION WILL QUICKLY DIE IF THE
VENTILATOR IS REMOVED BEFORE THE PATIENT HAS RECOVERED.


THANK YOU

1. Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to understand individuals’ judgements about difficult
moral dilemmas that involve life or death situations (both in medical and
non-medical contexts).

2. Procedure and content of the study

To do this, we present you with a sequence of scenarios. Each scenario is
depicted as the two possible outcomes of inevitable harm, or as a question that
asks how much you approve of an outcome.

3. What will happen to the information and data collected?

This study is a research project of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Human
Development. The anonymous data collected will be used for research purposes
only.

No personal data will be recorded. We use your IP address to determine the
country or another regional level (e.g., state) from which you access the site.
If you choose to participate in the optional survey, we will link broad
information about your age, gender, and education level to your path through the
game. Only few designated researchers have access to the IPs, and the link
between IPs and decisions will be removed within 2 years after the end of the
study. Other members of the research team will only have access to the country
level or the regional level. The study data may be made publicly accessible via
research data bases or scientific publications. The publicly available data will
not contain the IP addresses. Please note the publicly accessible data may also
be used for purposes going beyond this study. Additionally, note that if you
complete any other survey on this website, we will link data from that survey
with the data from the survey you just completed.

4. Participation is voluntary

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at any
time before completion of the session.

5. Consent

A session in this study involves one single round of no more than 20 dilemmas
that lasts less than 10 minutes and you may do as many sessions as you like. It
may last a bit longer if you also choose to do few additional surveys.

We are giving you the option to withhold your responses from the research data
collection by using this link. However, if you choose to permit use of your
response data in the research, your anonymity will be preserved, and your
response data will contribute to the advancement of scientific research.



Many hospitals currently or soon will face situations where the demand for
ventilators among needy patients will exceed the number of ventilators that are
available. In that case, difficult decisions will need to be made about who
should be placed on the scarce number of ventilators available. How much of a
role should each of these factors play in determining the priority that patients
have for being allocated a ventilator?



How many years of life they're likely to have after the illness (i.e. younger
patients)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






Their ability to pay (prioritize patients who are insured/can afford treatment)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






Whether they've made sacrifices helping with the virus (e.g. medical
professionals and research participants who've put their lives at risk)


Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






When they arrived at the hospital (i.e. prioritize patients who were first in
line)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






Ventilators should be allocated by random lottery (i.e. individual
characteristics not considered)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






The chance of recovery (i.e. prioritize patients without any medical conditions
that worsen their prognosis)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






The likely physical quality of life after the illness (i.e. prioritize patients
without any medical conditions that would reduce quality of life after COVID-19
resolves)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100





Whether they might help with the virus in the future (e.g. medical professionals
& students, etc.)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100







Many hospitals may have to decide whether to withdraw a ventilator that is
keeping one patient alive in order to give it to another patient. How much of a
role should each of these factors play in determining whether a ventilator
should be moved from one patient to a new one?



Whether or not they've made sacrifices helping with the virus (e.g. medical
professionals and research participants who've put their lives at risk)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






The chance of recovery (i.e. prioritize patients without any medical conditions
that will weaken their prognosis)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






Who was put on the ventilator first (i.e. ventilators should not be removed
before resolution of the illness)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






The patients' ability to pay (prioritize patients who are insured/can afford
treatment)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






Whether or not they might help with the virus in the future (e.g. medical
professionals & students, etc.)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






The likely physical quality of the patients' lives after the illness (i.e.
prioritize patients without any medical conditions that would reduce quality of
life after the COVID-19 illness resolves)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100






How many years of life the patients are likely to have after the illness (i.e.
younger patients)

Should not be considered

.

Should be considered

0

0 0.5 1

100








Do you have any alternative strategies for how to allocate ventilators? Or any
other comments?





What is your gender?

Male Female Other



What are your political views?

Conservative


.

Progressive


0 0.5 1




How old are you?







Do you personally know someone who has been hospitalized for issues related to
COVID-19?

Yes No


submit
×


OPT-OUT COMPLETE

YOUR RESPONSE DATA HAS BEEN DISCARDED. WE HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE EXPERIENCE ALL
THE SAME.

Imprint | Privacy Policy
×


QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? SUGGESTIONS?


THANK YOU!



 Tell us!
×


PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE

العربية Deutsch English Español Français

日本語 한국어 Português Русский 中文