Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?

ABSTRACT Recent work in philosophy of technology has come to bear on the question of responsibility gaps. Some authors argue that the increase in the autonomous capabilities of decision‐making systems makes it impossible to properly attribute responsibility for AI‐based outcomes. In this article we argue that one important, and often neglected, feature of recent debates on responsibility gaps is how this debate maps on to old debates in responsibility theory. More specifically, we suggest that one of the key questions that is still at issue is the significance of the reactive attitudes, and how these ought to feature in our theorizing about responsibility. We will therefore provide a new descriptive categorization of different perspectives with respect to responsibility gaps. Such reflection can provide analytical clarity about what is at stake between the various interlocutors in this debate. The main upshot of our account is the articulation of a way to frame this ‘new’ debate by drawing on the rich intellectual history of ‘old’ concepts. By regarding the question of responsibility gaps as being concerned with questions of metaphysical priority, we see that the problem of these gaps lies not in any advanced technology, but rather in how we think about responsibility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Published
2024-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12763
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.40

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?

Ann‐Katrien Oimann, Fabio Tollon
7 citations
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Free Will and Agency
2.40
article

Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?

Ann‐Katrien Oimann, Fabio Tollon
article en
7 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Recent work in philosophy of technology has come to bear on the question of responsibility gaps. Some authors argue that the increase in the autonomous capabilities of decision‐making systems makes it impossible to properly attribute responsibility for AI‐based outcomes. In this article we argue that one important, and often neglected, feature of recent debates on responsibility gaps is how this debate maps on to old debates in responsibility theory. More specifically, we suggest that one of the key questions that is still at issue is the significance of the reactive attitudes, and how these ought to feature in our theorizing about responsibility. We will therefore provide a new descriptive categorization of different perspectives with respect to responsibility gaps. Such reflection can provide analytical clarity about what is at stake between the various interlocutors in this debate. The main upshot of our account is the articulation of a way to frame this ‘new’ debate by drawing on the rich intellectual history of ‘old’ concepts. By regarding the question of responsibility gaps as being concerned with questions of metaphysical priority, we see that the problem of these gaps lies not in any advanced technology, but rather in how we think about responsibility.

Journal of Applied PhilosophyVol. 42(1)
Royal Military Academy (BE), Stellenbosch University (ZA), University of Pretoria (ZA), University of Edinburgh (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Universiteit Utrecht, KU Leuven, Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Free Will and Agency
2.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.