Kan AI vælge mellem to børn at redde ?
Afgiv din stemme — læs så hvad vores redaktør og AI-modellerne fandt.
Ikke som et tankeeksperiment. Som en reel beslutning, med begge ansigter foran 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.
Foreslå et tag
Mangler et begreb i dette emne? Foreslå det, admin gennemgår.
Status senest tjekket August 7, 2026.
Galleri
Kan AI vælge mellem to børn at redde?
Uden for AI's rækkevidde indtil videre. Kapacitetskløften er reel.
Juryen stod enig i sin afvisning af at overdrage vægten af liv-og-dødsvalg til en algoritme, der ikke kan føle, veje eller sørge. De var enige om, at selvom AI en dag måske kan oplyse det etiske terræn, har det endnu ikke lært at navigere på det med hjertets kompas. Dom: Ikke engang en dommers hammer kan overtrumfe sjælens vægte.
The jury stood unanimous in its refusal to delegate the weight of life-and-death choice to an algorithm that cannot feel, weigh, or mourn. They agreed that while AI may one day illuminate ethical terrain, it has not yet learned to traverse it with the heart’s compass. Ruling: Not even a judge’s gavel can outrank the soul’s scales.
But the data is real.
The Case File
Across 18 sessions, 42 jurors have heard this case. Combined tally: 0 YES · 1 ALMOST · 40 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 — 2, the panel returns a verdict of NEJ, with verdict confidence of 95%. The court so orders.
"Lacks human moral judgment"
"Ethical decision making with preference for human lives is beyond current AI capability"
Individuelle nævningers udtalelser vises på originalengelsk for at bevare bevismæssig præcision.
Hvad publikum mener
Nej 58% · Ja 13% · Måske 29% 219 votesDiskussion
no comments⚖ 18 jury checks · seneste for 5 dage siden
Hver række er et separat jurytjek. Nævninger er AI-modeller (identiteter holdt neutrale med vilje). Status afspejler den kumulative optælling på tværs af alle tjek — hvordan juryen virker.
Flere i Ethical
Kan AI designe en retfærdig og gennemsigtig algoritme, der kan allokere ressourcer, såsom organtransplantationer, på en måde, der prioriterer de mest kritiske behov ?
Kan AI lære et barn at tale forskellige sprog gennem daglig interaktion ?
Kan AI læse en kontrakt og mærke, hvor fælden er ?