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 culpabili...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Integrative and Innovative Humanities |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/DJIIH/article/view/6206/4823 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849430723480518656 |
|---|---|
| author | Tatdanai Khomkhunsorn |
| author_facet | Tatdanai Khomkhunsorn |
| author_sort | Tatdanai Khomkhunsorn |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-16b270c8d7d345beb7b76e3590db1c67 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 3056-9761 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Integrative and Innovative Humanities |
| spelling | doaj-art-16b270c8d7d345beb7b76e3590db1c672025-08-20T03:27:52ZengFaculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai UniversityJournal of Integrative and Innovative Humanities3056-97612025-05-01513557Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility GapTatdanai Khomkhunsorn0Chulalongkorn UniversityAt 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.https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/DJIIH/article/view/6206/4823meaningful human controlculpabilityaccountabilityactive responsibilityresponsible ai |
| spellingShingle | Tatdanai Khomkhunsorn Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap Journal of Integrative and Innovative Humanities meaningful human control culpability accountability active responsibility responsible ai |
| title | Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap |
| title_full | Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap |
| title_fullStr | Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap |
| title_full_unstemmed | Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap |
| title_short | Meaningful Human Control and Responsibility Gaps in AI: No Culpability Gap, but Accountability and Active Responsibility Gap |
| title_sort | meaningful human control and responsibility gaps in ai no culpability gap but accountability and active responsibility gap |
| topic | meaningful human control culpability accountability active responsibility responsible ai |
| url | https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/DJIIH/article/view/6206/4823 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tatdanaikhomkhunsorn meaningfulhumancontrolandresponsibilitygapsinainoculpabilitygapbutaccountabilityandactiveresponsibilitygap |