Uncovering the gap: challenging the agential nature of AI responsibility problems

Abstract In this paper, I will argue that the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems is reducible to the problem of many hands and collective agency. Systematic analysis of the agential dimension of AI will lead me to outline a disjunctive between the two problems. Either we reduce individual responsibility gaps to the many hands, or we abandon the individual dimension and accept the possibility of responsible collective agencies. Depending on which conception of AI agency we begin with, the responsibility gap will boil down to one of these two moral problems. Moreover, I will adduce that this conclusion reveals an underlying weakness in AI ethics: the lack of attention to the question of the disciplinary boundaries of AI ethics. This absence has made it difficult to identify the specifics of the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems as compared to the responsibility gaps of other applied ethics. Lastly, I will be concerned with outlining these specific aspects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI and Ethics
Published
2025-02-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00685-w
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.83

Funders

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

Uncovering the gap: challenging the agential nature of AI responsibility problems

Joan Llorca Albareda
5 citations
AI and Ethics
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
11.83
article

Uncovering the gap: challenging the agential nature of AI responsibility problems

Joan Llorca Albareda
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, I will argue that the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems is reducible to the problem of many hands and collective agency. Systematic analysis of the agential dimension of AI will lead me to outline a disjunctive between the two problems. Either we reduce individual responsibility gaps to the many hands, or we abandon the individual dimension and accept the possibility of responsible collective agencies. Depending on which conception of AI agency we begin with, the responsibility gap will boil down to one of these two moral problems. Moreover, I will adduce that this conclusion reveals an underlying weakness in AI ethics: the lack of attention to the question of the disciplinary boundaries of AI ethics. This absence has made it difficult to identify the specifics of the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems as compared to the responsibility gaps of other applied ethics. Lastly, I will be concerned with outlining these specific aspects.

AI and EthicsVol. 5(4)
Universidad de Granada (ES)
Universidad de Granada
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
11.83
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.

Uncovering the gap: challenging the agential nature of AI responsibility problems — Joan Llorca Albareda · AI and Ethics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS