Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2307.01311

Autonomous Vehicles for All?

Sakib Mahmud Khan·M Sabbir Salek·Vareva Harris·Gurcan Comert·Eric Morris·Mashrur Chowdhury
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The traditional build-and-expand approach is not a viable solution to keep roadway traffic rolling safely, so technological solutions, such as Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), are favored. AVs have considerable potential to increase the carrying capacity of roads, ameliorate the chore of driving, improve safety, provide mobility for those who cannot drive, and help the environment. However, they also raise concerns over whether they are socially responsible, accounting for issues such as fairness, equity, and transparency. Regulatory bodies have focused on AV safety, cybersecurity, privacy, and legal liability issues, but have failed to adequately address social responsibility. Thus, existing AV developers do not have to embed social responsibility factors in their proprietary technology. Adverse bias may therefore occur in the development and deployment of AV technology. For instance, an artificial intelligence-based pedestrian detection application used in an AV may, in limited lighting conditions, be biased to detect pedestrians who belong to a particular racial demographic more efficiently compared to pedestrians from other racial demographics. Also, AV technologies tend to be costly, with a unique hardware and software setup which may be beyond the reach of lower-income people. In addition, data generated by AVs about their users may be misused by third parties such as corporations, criminals, or even foreign governments. AVs promise to dramatically impact labor markets, as many jobs that involve driving will be made redundant. We argue that the academic institutions, industry, and government agencies overseeing AV development and deployment must act proactively to ensure that AVs serve all and do not increase the digital divide in our society.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sakib Mahmud Khan, M Sabbir Salek, Vareva Harris, Gurcan Comert, Eric Morris, Mashrur Chowdhury. 2023-07-03. Autonomous Vehicles for All?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01311

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗