<scp>AI</scp> and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance

ABSTRACT The best‐performing AI systems, such as deep neural networks, tend to be the ones that are most difficult to control and understand. For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so‐called responsibility gaps , that is, situations in which no one is morally responsible for the harm caused by AI, because no one satisfies the so‐called control condition and epistemic condition of moral responsibility. In this article, I acknowledge that there is a significant challenge around responsibility and AI. Yet I don't think that this challenge is best captured in terms of a responsibility gap . Instead, I argue for the opposite view, namely that there is responsibility abundance , that is, a situation in which numerous agents are responsible for the harm caused by AI, and that the challenge comes from the difficulties of dealing with such abundance in practice. I conclude by arguing that reframing the challenge in this way offers distinct dialectic and theoretical advantages, promising to help overcome some obstacles in the current debate surrounding ‘responsibility gaps’.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Published
2024-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12765
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

AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance

Maximilian Kiener
7 citations
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Free Will and Agency
2.40
article

AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance

Maximilian Kiener
article en
7 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT The best‐performing AI systems, such as deep neural networks, tend to be the ones that are most difficult to control and understand. For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so‐called responsibility gaps , that is, situations in which no one is morally responsible for the harm caused by AI, because no one satisfies the so‐called control condition and epistemic condition of moral responsibility. In this article, I acknowledge that there is a significant challenge around responsibility and AI. Yet I don't think that this challenge is best captured in terms of a responsibility gap . Instead, I argue for the opposite view, namely that there is responsibility abundance , that is, a situation in which numerous agents are responsible for the harm caused by AI, and that the challenge comes from the difficulties of dealing with such abundance in practice. I conclude by arguing that reframing the challenge in this way offers distinct dialectic and theoretical advantages, promising to help overcome some obstacles in the current debate surrounding ‘responsibility gaps’.

Journal of Applied PhilosophyVol. 42(1)
Universität Hamburg (DE), Hamburg University of Technology (DE)
Leverhulme Trust, University of Southampton, University of Oxford, Universität Hamburg, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
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.