Do AI agents have free will, really?

Abstract Martela (AI and Ethics 5: 4389–4400, 2025) claims that contemporary AI agents based on large language models (LLMs) possess a form of free will, passing the so-called List’s Agency Test. Martela presents two examples of such LLMs, a video game playing software Voyager and a fictional autonomous drone Spitenik. In this paper we argue that neither of these examples pass List’s Agency Test. Instead, Voyager’s and Spitenik’s behavior can be exhaustively explained computationally. Furthermore, to the extent such a computational account is available, the assignment of intentional contents can be seen as merely “glossing” the system’s internal computational states, in the sense elaborated by Egan. Intentional considerations are, thus, not explanatorily mandatory as required by List’s Agency Test. Since List’s conditions for intentionality are not met, Martela’s arguments for free will in AI agents fail.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI and Ethics
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01125-z
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Do AI agents have free will, really?

Anna-Mari Wallenberg, Tommi Buder-Gröndahl, Iikka Hauhio
AI and Ethics
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Do AI agents have free will, really?

Anna-Mari Wallenberg, Tommi Buder-Gröndahl, Iikka Hauhio
article en

Abstract

Abstract Martela (AI and Ethics 5: 4389–4400, 2025) claims that contemporary AI agents based on large language models (LLMs) possess a form of free will, passing the so-called List’s Agency Test. Martela presents two examples of such LLMs, a video game playing software Voyager and a fictional autonomous drone Spitenik. In this paper we argue that neither of these examples pass List’s Agency Test. Instead, Voyager’s and Spitenik’s behavior can be exhaustively explained computationally. Furthermore, to the extent such a computational account is available, the assignment of intentional contents can be seen as merely “glossing” the system’s internal computational states, in the sense elaborated by Egan. Intentional considerations are, thus, not explanatorily mandatory as required by List’s Agency Test. Since List’s conditions for intentionality are not met, Martela’s arguments for free will in AI agents fail.

AI and EthicsVol. 6(3)
University of Helsinki (FI)
Helsingin Yliopisto, Helsingin ja Uudenmaan Sairaanhoitopiiri
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
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.