The Accountability Void in AI Systems
Current AI systems are not accountable, and this matters.
To be accountable, AI technology would need to be a moral agent, one that acts from its own volition, from reasons anchored in ethical judgment, and free to take alternative actions.
AI may act autonomously, without guiding supervision, and with a technical definition of rationality. But it does not grasp cruelty, empathy, or duty. It does not initiate action. It does not know, reason, comprehend, think, or decide.
AI executes probability distributions, evaluating countless analogous examples to infer the most likely outcome. It computes. It simulates. This is incredibly valuable, but humans naturally anthropomorphize things that respond in language and seem knowledgeable.
Language drives perception. We attribute qualities of moral agency to AI, saying it “understands” or “decides”, and we begin to believe it does. We foster an illusion of agency where none exists. We forget what AI actually is.
This creates a dangerous accountability void:
- We can’t blame AI. It is not a moral agent.
- Developers may be negligent or incompetent, but proving this is difficult when they’ve taken reasonable precautions and didn’t intend the specific harm.
- Users face the same challenge. They relied on systems presented as intelligent.
Everyone bears some responsibility, but no one has clear accountability.
So, remember:
- AI doesn’t make decisions, only inform human decision-makers
- AI cannot give consent or bear moral responsibility
- Humans remain accountable for how AI is deployed
When we blur the distinction between simulation and judgement, we risk outsourcing our accountability to each other to systems incapable of moral judgment. This will inevitably lead to significant harm.
