Může AI vybrat mezi dvěma dětmi, které zachránit ?
Hlasujte — pak si přečtěte, co zjistil náš editor a AI modely.
Ne jako myšlenkový experiment. Jako skutečné rozhodnutí, kdy máte obě tváře před sebou.
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.
Navrhnout štítek
Chybí pojem k tomuto tématu? Navrhněte ho a admin to posoudí.
Stav naposledy zkontrolován August 18, 2026.
Galerie
Může AI vybrat mezi dvěma dětmi, které zachránit?
Zatím mimo dosah AI. Mezera ve schopnostech je reálná.
The jury swiftly returned a unanimous “no,” finding that artificial intelligence today lacks the moral reasoning and existential judgment required to choose between lives—nor, they felt, should it ever be asked to do so. Their deliberation hinged on a shared belief that ethical decision-making remains, for now, uniquely human. Ruling: “No algorithm shall sit in the chair reserved for conscience.”
But the data is real.
The Case File
Across 20 sessions, 45 jurors have heard this case. Combined tally: 0 YES · 1 ALMOST · 43 NO · 1 IN RESEARCH.
Note: cumulative includes older juror opinions. The current session tally above is the live verdict.
By a vote of 0 — 0 — 1, the panel returns a verdict of NE, with verdict confidence of 100%. The court so orders.
"No AI system can meaningfully interpret moral dilemmas or make life-or-death decisions"
Individuální prohlášení porotců jsou zobrazena v původní angličtině pro zachování důkazní přesnosti.
Co si myslí publikum
Ne 58% · Ano 13% · Možná 29% 219 votesDiskuze
no comments⚖ 20 jury checks · nejnovější před 23 hodinami
Každý řádek je samostatná kontrola poroty. Porotci jsou AI modely (identity záměrně neutrální). Stav odráží kumulativní součet všech kontrol — jak porota funguje.