Knowing whether to rely: continuous awareness as a moral right in human-AI interaction

Abstract A person relying on a system has a right to know what it is; disclosure secures that right but only while the object of reliance remains materially stable. Under AI, the object does not stay still, and a model’s integrity can change without warning. A moment after disclosure is issued, the system described may have evolved, drifted, or been compromised while the user continues relying on it unaware of its current state. A person’s interest in what they rely on is continuous, but disclosure is episodic, and that epistemic mismatch is not closed by repeating the notice. This paper reconceives AI transparency around a single claim: A person relying on an AI system holds a moral right to continuous awareness of the system’s status, grounded in the same autonomy that informed consent protects. How continuous awareness is delivered is the corollary of that right. The status signal that delivers it must be continuous and vouched from outside the system, since a captured system cannot certify its own integrity. Shaping that signal is therefore an ethical act, not an engineering detail.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI and Ethics
Published
2026-09-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01387-7
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
article

Knowing whether to rely: continuous awareness as a moral right in human-AI interaction

Khaled Sawaf
AI and Ethics
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Knowing whether to rely: continuous awareness as a moral right in human-AI interaction

Khaled Sawaf
article en

Abstract

Abstract A person relying on a system has a right to know what it is; disclosure secures that right but only while the object of reliance remains materially stable. Under AI, the object does not stay still, and a model’s integrity can change without warning. A moment after disclosure is issued, the system described may have evolved, drifted, or been compromised while the user continues relying on it unaware of its current state. A person’s interest in what they rely on is continuous, but disclosure is episodic, and that epistemic mismatch is not closed by repeating the notice. This paper reconceives AI transparency around a single claim: A person relying on an AI system holds a moral right to continuous awareness of the system’s status, grounded in the same autonomy that informed consent protects. How continuous awareness is delivered is the corollary of that right. The status signal that delivers it must be continuous and vouched from outside the system, since a captured system cannot certify its own integrity. Shaping that signal is therefore an ethical act, not an engineering detail.

AI and EthicsVol. 6(5)
Edinburgh College (GB), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
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.