Artificial Intelligence and Moral Dilemmas& an upgraded version of trolley problem

Link for the article: 

http://enterpriseresilienceblog.typepad.com/enterprise_resilience_man/2012/06/artificial-intelligence-and-moral-dilemmas.html

     I think this article has posted two very innovative problems concerning artificial intelligence.

   1: We are talking about is it possible for machines to have sentience and to what extend it could resemble a human all the time,but this article has raised the question that if such a situation had become truth, should we treat it as the dawn of a new intelligent species and give the "autonomous sentient being" some rights?

   2:People are contending about the ethical aspect about robots having sentience, since sentience is somehow a privilege for human; but this article have presented the opinion that "the greatest danger posed by AI is its lack of sentience rather than the presence of it."

    I believe it's impossible to find a optimal notch on the "moral ability" of robots, since consciousless robots can also be used to carry out good deeds or bad deeds(same as real people in this world), thus the moral power here is holding in the hand of human; an autonomous robot can also make good or bad decisions, same as we have good people and bad people in this world.And the proclivity of being a "good" robot or a "bad" robot still has a big relevance with the intention of its human designer/master, since an autonomous robot does not grow out from a bunch of random wires,chips and circus.

    This article has also brought up the famous trolley problem as an example of the moral dilemma that an AI robot would likely to face:

"The problem involves a trolley running out of control down a track. Five people are tied to the track in its path. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will send the trolley down a different track to safety. But, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch? "

     This is a good hypothesis,but for me it is still a relatively easy one.It has a strong laboratory taste(does not include the possibility of 'hyper-complexity' in real world), the contrast is too obvious(1:5) and the control groups are under the same circumstance( both tied on the track).Now let's upgrade it to a different,more real-life like situation:

       There are two tracks , track A is still in use and with a large warning sign says" DANGER!DO NOT APPROACH" and there are two kids playing on it; track B has fallen into desuetude for years, and there's one kid playing on it. Now your trolley has gone out of control, which track should you choose?

       In this version, the situation is more complex and does a better job to resemble the things happening in real life. First,the contrast between control groups is narrowed from 1:5 to 1:2, which means this is a more subtle situation and the ground of quantity you are provided to make your final decision is 'thinner'; Second, since the control groups are under different situations(two different track conditions),the thin line between right and wrong is further smudged : should you let your trolley rushes down the track that still in use and has warning signs and crush the two kids playing on it; or should  you switch the flip and send your trolley down  track B, crushing the one kid who has made the right choice of playing on a desuetude track and let him/her sacrifice for the fault of the other two kids? There's really no right decision  here and I'm not gonna answer it. I feel  part of the advantage about autonomous robots is that they can always come up with a decision( if it is programmed properly) on such dilemmas and the moral responsibility of human is relieved.