Abstract
My technical project and STS research are connected through their shared feature as partially autonomous systems, in which effectiveness and ethical responsibility depend on how engineers design the relationship between automation and human factors. In my capstone project, I developed an Autonomous Interceptor System (AIS), a robotic surveillance platform that integrates Wi-Fi Channel State Information sensing with pursuit planning algorithms to detect and intercept intruders in indoor environments. My STS research, from another perspective, examines the 2016 Tesla Autopilot crash through a Kantian duty ethics framework, evaluating whether the design and deployment of partially autonomous systems can be morally justified. While the two projects address different applications, both investigate how machine sensing and automation redistribute responsibility between humans and intelligent systems.
The AIS is designed to overcome the limitations of traditional surveillance systems that rely on line-of-sight sensing. By combining distributed Wi-Fi sensing nodes with mobile robotic agents, the system can perform a full automation loop that detects motion through walls, estimates intruder location, and autonomously plans interception paths. This approach improves detection capability and reduces reliance on human monitoring, offering a scalable and cost-efficient security solution. Meanwhile, the system also introduces a higher degree of automation in decision-making, raising important questions about oversight, accountability, and potential misuse.
My STS research addresses similar concerns in the context of autonomous vehicle technology. Using Kantian duty ethics, I argue that Tesla’s design, naming, and promotion of Autopilot were morally impermissible because they misaligned control, knowledge, and responsibility. By encouraging user overreliance on a system with known limitations, Tesla created a structure in which human drivers were expected to compensate for technological shortcomings. This analysis shifts the focus from technical failure to the ethical principles embedded in engineering design, emphasizing that responsibility cannot be separated from control and system capability.
Working on these projects simultaneously deepened my understanding of how ethical considerations and duties must be integrated into technical design. My STS research highlighted that even systems that seem to be highly advanced can fail or be misused if responsibility is poorly structured, and that directly contributes to how I evaluate and improve my AIS design. For example, the system must include clear mechanisms for human oversight and avoid creating misleading perceptions of autonomy. Similarly, my technical work provided a concrete context for understanding how design decisions shape user interaction and system behavior in both simulations and real-world settings. Together, these projects demonstrate that successful engineering requires not only technical innovation but also careful attention to how sociotechnical systems distribute authority, responsibility, and risk.
