The article by Bonnefon, Shariff, and Rahwan explores the social dilemma surrounding the ethical programming of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). AVs are expected to reduce traffic accidents, but they must sometimes make difficult moral choices, such as sacrificing their passengers to save more lives. The authors conducted six online surveys to understand public attitudes towards AVs and the potential challenges of regulating their algorithms. Key findings include: 1. Participants generally approved of utilitarian AVs (sacrificing passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would prefer AVs that protect their own passengers. 2. Participants disapproved of enforcing utilitarian algorithms and were less likely to buy such regulated AVs. 3. This social dilemma suggests that regulating AVs to prioritize utilitarian outcomes may paradoxically increase casualties by delaying the adoption of safer technology. 4. The authors highlight the need for a collective discussion on the ethics of AVs and the potential trade-offs between personal safety and societal benefits. The study underscores the complexity of designing moral algorithms for AVs and the importance of considering public opinion and social pressure in the development of these technologies.The article by Bonnefon, Shariff, and Rahwan explores the social dilemma surrounding the ethical programming of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). AVs are expected to reduce traffic accidents, but they must sometimes make difficult moral choices, such as sacrificing their passengers to save more lives. The authors conducted six online surveys to understand public attitudes towards AVs and the potential challenges of regulating their algorithms. Key findings include: 1. Participants generally approved of utilitarian AVs (sacrificing passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would prefer AVs that protect their own passengers. 2. Participants disapproved of enforcing utilitarian algorithms and were less likely to buy such regulated AVs. 3. This social dilemma suggests that regulating AVs to prioritize utilitarian outcomes may paradoxically increase casualties by delaying the adoption of safer technology. 4. The authors highlight the need for a collective discussion on the ethics of AVs and the potential trade-offs between personal safety and societal benefits. The study underscores the complexity of designing moral algorithms for AVs and the importance of considering public opinion and social pressure in the development of these technologies.