Abstract
This study aims to explore how adults assign responsibility to different agents-both Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and human beings-in the context of an airplane crash, based on factors of criticality and pivotality. Criticality is related to the perceived importance of an agent’s actions in achieving an outcome (prospective judgements), while pivotality examines the degree to which the agent’s actions contributed to the actual outcome (retrospective judgements). Our results replicate previous findings, demonstrating that participants are sensitive to both factors. They rate agents involved in a conjunctive structure as more critical than those in a disjunctive one. Similarly, agents are held more responsible when their errors are completely pivotal to the crash. Interestingly, participants attribute more responsibility to human beings than to AI systems, but this trend is only observed in trials where the pivotality is reduced.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashton, H., Franklin, M.: The corrupting influence of AI as a boss or counterparty (2022)
Ashton, H., Franklin, M., Lagnado, D.: Testing a definition of intent for AI in a legal setting. Unpublished Manuscript (2022)
Awad, E., Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Dsouza, S., Tenenbaum, J.B., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.F., Rahwan, I.: Blaming humans in autonomous vehicle accidents: Shared responsibility across levels of automation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07170 (2018)
Bates, D.W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A., Escobar, G.: Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health affairs 33(7), 1123–1131 (2014)
Castelvecchi, D.: Can we open the black box of ai? Nature News 538(7623), 20 (2016)
Franklin, M., Ashton, H., Awad, E., Lagnado, D.: Causal framework of artificial autonomous agent responsibility. In: Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. pp. 276–284 (2022)
Franklin, M., Awad, E., Ashton, H., Lagnado, D.: Unpredictable robots elicit responsibility attributions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46, e30 (2023)
Franklin, M., Awad, E., Lagnado, D.: Blaming automated vehicles in difficult situations. Iscience 24(4), 102252 (2021)
Gerstenberg, T., Lagnado, D.A.: Spreading the blame: The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple agents. Cognition 115(1), 166–171 (2010)
Gutierrez, C.I., Aguirre, A., Uuk, R., Boine, C.C., Franklin, M.: A proposal for a definition of general purpose artificial intelligence systems. Available at SSRN 4238951 (2022)
Johnson, D.G., Verdicchio, M.: AI, agency and responsibility: the vw fraud case and beyond. AI & Society 34(3), 639–647 (2019)
Köbis, N., Bonnefon, J.F., Rahwan, I.: Bad machines corrupt good morals. Nature Human Behaviour 5(6), 679–685 (2021)
Lagnado, D., Gerstenberg, T.: A difference-making framework for intuitive judgments of responsibility. Oxford studies in agency and responsibility 3, 213–241 (2015)
Lagnado, D.A., Channon, S.: Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition 108(3), 754–770 (2008)
Malle, B.F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., Cusimano, C.: Sacrifice one for the good of many? people apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 117–124. IEEE (2015)
Matthias, A.: The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information technology 6(3), 175–183 (2004)
Perry, W.L.: Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Rand Corporation (2013)
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J.W., Christakis, N.A., Couzin, I.D., Jackson, M.O., et al.: Machine behaviour. Nature 568(7753), 477–486 (2019)
Richtel, M.: How big data is playing recruiter for specialized workers. New York Times pp. 1–7 (2013)
Ruggeri, K., Kácha, O., Menezes, I.G., Kos, M., Franklin, M., Parma, L., Langdon, P., Matthews, B., Miles, J.: In with the new? generational differences shape population technology adoption patterns in the age of self-driving vehicles. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 50, 39–44 (2018)
Westcott, C., Lagnado, D.: The AI will see you now: Judgments of responsibility at the intersection of artificial intelligence and medicine (master’s thesis). Unpublished Manuscript (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gómez-Sánchez, J., Gordo, C., Franklin, M., Fernandez-Basso, C., Lagnado, D. (2023). Who Is to Blame? Responsibility Attribution in AI Systems vs Human Agents in the Field of Air Crashes. In: Larsen, H.L., Martin-Bautista, M.J., Ruiz, M.D., Andreasen, T., Bordogna, G., De Tré, G. (eds) Flexible Query Answering Systems. FQAS 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14113. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42935-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42935-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42934-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42935-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)