Unravelling Responsibility for AI

Overview

• This paper aims to clarify the concept of responsibility for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems.
• It draws upon philosophical and legal distinctions to unravel the different aspects of responsibility, including who is responsible, the senses in which they are responsible, and what they are responsible for.
• The analysis is presented with a graphical notation to facilitate discussions about specific cases, and is illustrated by application to a scenario of a fatal collision between an autonomous AI-enabled ship and a traditional, crewed vessel.

Plain English Explanation

When AI-powered systems cause harm, it's important to understand who is responsible and in what way. This paper breaks down the concept of responsibility into different components to help policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and others from non-philosophical and non-legal backgrounds have more focused and productive discussions on this topic.

The paper examines the three-part formulation of "Actor A is responsible for Occurrence O." It looks at the various possibilities for who could be responsible for an AI-related incident, the different senses in which they could be responsible (e.g., causally, morally, legally), and the specific aspects of the incident they may be responsible for.

The paper provides criteria and conditions for when it would be appropriate or unjust to attribute responsibility in these core senses. It uses diagrams to help visualize and reason about specific scenarios, such as a fatal collision between an autonomous ship and a traditional, crewed vessel.

By clarifying the nuances of responsibility, the paper aims to prevent discussions about AI accountability from being unfocused or misguided. The insights can help ensure responsibility is attributed fairly and effectively.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by acknowledging the need to establish where responsibility lies for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems. However, it argues that without a clear understanding of what responsibility means, deliberations on this topic will be incomplete or misguided.

To address this, the paper draws on philosophical and legal concepts to unravel the different aspects of responsibility for AI systems. It focuses on the three-part formulation of "Actor A is responsible for Occurrence O," and explores the various possibilities for who could be the responsible actor, the senses in which they could be responsible, and the specific aspects of the occurrence they may be responsible for.

The paper articulates criteria and conditions for appropriately attributing responsibility in the core senses of causal responsibility, role-responsibility, liability responsibility, and moral responsibility. This is intended to promote an understanding of when responsibility attributions would be inappropriate or unjust.

The analysis is presented using a graphical notation to facilitate informal diagrammatic reasoning and discussion about specific cases. The paper illustrates the application of this framework to a scenario involving a fatal collision between an autonomous AI-enabled ship and a traditional, crewed vessel.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable and much-needed framework for reasoning about responsibility in the context of AI systems. By unpacking the different components of responsibility, it offers a more nuanced and rigorous approach to this important issue.

One potential limitation is that the framework may be challenging to apply in practice, particularly for complex or ambiguous scenarios. The paper acknowledges this and suggests that the graphical notation can help, but further work may be needed to develop more detailed guidelines or case studies.

Additionally, the paper focuses primarily on responsibility at the level of individual actors, but some have argued that there may also be a need to consider collective or systemic responsibility for the impacts of AI [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/responsible-ai-portraits-intelligent-bibliometrics]. The paper could be strengthened by discussing how its framework might apply to or interact with these broader perspectives on AI responsibility.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussions around AI accountability and ethics. By clarifying the conceptual foundations of responsibility, it lays the groundwork for more constructive and meaningful debates on these critical issues.

Conclusion

This paper provides a much-needed framework for understanding responsibility in the context of AI-enabled systems. By unpacking the different aspects of responsibility, including who is responsible, the senses in which they are responsible, and what they are responsible for, the paper offers a more nuanced and rigorous approach to this important issue.

The insights from this paper can help policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and others have more focused and productive discussions about AI accountability and ethics. By clarifying the conceptual foundations of responsibility, the paper lays the groundwork for ensuring that responsibility is attributed fairly and effectively, which is crucial as AI systems become increasingly prevalent and influential in our lives [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/beyond-personhood-agency-accountability-limits-anthropomorphic-ethical, https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/responsible-reporting-frontier-ai-development, https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/university-framework-responsible-use-generative-ai-research].