How AI Skews Our Sense of Responsibility

Research shows how using an Al-augmented system may affect humans' perception of their own agency and responsibility.

- Ryad Titah

As artificial intelligence plays an everlarger role in automated systems and decision-making processes, the question of how it affects humans’ sense of their own agency is becoming less theoretical — and more urgent. It’s no surprise that humans often defer to automated decision recommendations, with exhortations to “trust the AI!” spurring user adoption in corporate settings. However, there’s growing evidence that AI diminishes users’ sense of responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

This question is largely overlooked in current discussions about responsible AI. In reality, such practices are intended to manage legal and reputational risk — a limited view of responsibility, if we draw on German philosopher Hans Jonas’s useful conceptualization. He defined three types of responsibility, but AI practice appears concerned with only two. The first is legal responsibility, wherein an individual or corporate entity is held responsible for repairing damage or compensating for losses, typically via civil law, and the second is moral responsibility, wherein individuals are held accountable via punishment, as in criminal law.

What we’re most concerned about here is the third type, what Jonas called the sense of responsibility. It’s what we mean when we speak admiringly of someone “acting responsibly.” It entails critical thinking and predictive reflection on the purpose and possible consequences of one’s actions, not only for oneself but for others. It’s this sense of responsibility that AI and automated systems can alter.