Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap

At the current stage of technological development, the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has given rise to various ethical concerns. Among these, the “Responsibility Gap” notion has appeared as a prominent issue. Within the scholarly literature, ethicists primarily focus on culpability (or blameworthiness). The central question is: when the development or use of AI results in morally harmful outcomes, who bears moral responsibility? This article argues that moral responsibility encompasses multiple distinct forms, each fulfilling specific functions within a society, especially in the context of AI development and application. Then, three forms of responsibility are considered: culpability, accountability, and active responsibility. Each carries unique social and ethical implications. Drawing on the concept of “meaningful human control,” which serves as a foundational framework, this article contends that the gap in culpability is not as significant or troubling as often suggested in existing research. Instead, the more pressing ethical challenges are associated with gaps in accountability and active responsibility. To address these challenges, this article elaborates on the “tracing condition,” a key element of meaningful human control, to mitigate and prevent morally harmful outcomes and the absence of human responsibility in the age of AI.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-05-01
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap

article en

Abstract

At the current stage of technological development, the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has given rise to various ethical concerns. Among these, the “Responsibility Gap” notion has appeared as a prominent issue. Within the scholarly literature, ethicists primarily focus on culpability (or blameworthiness). The central question is: when the development or use of AI results in morally harmful outcomes, who bears moral responsibility? This article argues that moral responsibility encompasses multiple distinct forms, each fulfilling specific functions within a society, especially in the context of AI development and application. Then, three forms of responsibility are considered: culpability, accountability, and active responsibility. Each carries unique social and ethical implications. Drawing on the concept of “meaningful human control,” which serves as a foundational framework, this article contends that the gap in culpability is not as significant or troubling as often suggested in existing research. Instead, the more pressing ethical challenges are associated with gaps in accountability and active responsibility. To address these challenges, this article elaborates on the “tracing condition,” a key element of meaningful human control, to mitigate and prevent morally harmful outcomes and the absence of human responsibility in the age of AI.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Chulalongkorn University (TH)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 47%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.