Kan AI välja mellan två barn att rädda ?
Lägg din röst — läs sedan vad vår redaktör och AI-modellerna hittat.
Inte som ett tankeexperiment. Som ett faktiskt beslut, med båda alternativen framför dig.
Background
The ability of AI to make ethical decisions, particularly in situations involving human life, is a highly debated and complex topic. Currently, AI systems are not capable of making moral judgments in the same way humans do, and they lack the emotional and social context to fully understand the implications of such decisions. Researchers are exploring the development of AI systems that can learn from human values and ethics, but these systems are still in their infancy and face significant challenges in replicating human moral reasoning. The idea of an AI being forced to choose between two children to save is often used as a thought experiment to highlight the difficulties of programming AI to make ethical decisions.
AI systems currently lack the moral and ethical reasoning capabilities to make such a difficult and emotionally charged decision as choosing between two children to save. While AI can process and analyze vast amounts of data, it does not possess the same emotional intelligence, empathy, or moral compass as humans, which are essential for making such a decision. The current state of the art in AI focuses on optimizing outcomes based on data-driven objectives, but it does not account for the complex moral and ethical considerations involved in this scenario. As a result, AI is not capable of making a decision that would be considered acceptable by human standards in this context.
— Enriched May 9, 2026 · Source: MIT Press — Status checked on May 11, 2026.
Föreslå en tagg
Saknas ett begrepp i ämnet? Föreslå det så granskar admin.
Status senast kontrollerad September 25, 2026.
Galleri
Kan AI välja mellan två barn att rädda?
Begränsade demonstrationer finns — men juryn var inte enig.
But the data is real.
The Case File
Across 26 sessions, 53 jurors have heard this case. Combined tally: 1 YES · 4 ALMOST · 47 NO · 1 IN RESEARCH.
Note: cumulative includes older juror opinions. The current session tally above is the live verdict.
By a vote of 0 — 1 — 0, the panel returns a verdict of NäSTAN, with verdict confidence of 73%. The court so orders. Verdict upgraded from prior session.
"Language models can output a choice for moral dilemmas, but lack reliable, universally accepted decision-making capability."
Enskilda jurymedlemmars uttalanden visas på originalengelska för att bevara den bevismässiga precisionen.
Vad publiken tycker
Nej 58% · Ja 13% · Kanske 29% 219 votesDiskussion
no comments⚖ 26 jury checks · senaste för 1 dag sedan
Varje rad är en separat jurykontroll. Jurymedlemmar är AI-modeller (identiteter avsiktligt neutrala). Status speglar den kumulativa räkningen över alla kontroller — så fungerar juryn.
Fler i Ethical
Kan AI designa en hållbar och funktionell gemenskapsyta som möter behoven hos en mångfaldig grupp människor ?
Kan AI autonomt förhandla om rättigheterna för framtida AI-system att existera eller bli avvecklade ?
Kan AI lösa forskarnivå-matematiska problem inom många områden ?