As debates about the policy and ethical implications of AI systems grow, it will be increasingly important to accurately locate who is responsible when agency is distributed in a system and control over an action is mediated through time and space. Analyzing several high-profile accidents involving complex and automated socio-technical systems and the media coverage that surrounded them, I introduce the concept of a moral crumple zone to describe how responsibility for an action may be misattributed to a human actor who had limited control over the behavior of an automated or autonomous system. Just as the crumple zone in a car is designed to absorb the force of impact in a crash, the human in a highly complex and automated system may become simply a component—accidentally or intentionally—that bears the brunt of the moral and legal responsibilities when the overall system malfunctions. While the crumple zone in a car is meant to protect the human driver, the moral crumple zone protects the integrity of the technological system, at the expense of the nearest human operator. The concept is both a challenge to and an opportunity for the design and regulation of human-robot systems. At stake in articulating moral crumple zones is not only the misattribution of responsibility but also the ways in which new forms of consumer and worker harm may develop in new complex, automated, or purported autonomous technologies.
Taking AI Welfare Seriously
In this report, we argue that there is a realistic possibility that some AI systems will be conscious and/or robustly agentic in the near future. That means that the prospect of AI welfare and moral patienthood, i.e. of AI systems with their own interests and moral significance, is no longer an issue only for sci-fi or the distant future. It is an issue for the near future, and AI companies and other actors have a responsibility to start taking it seriously. We also recommend three early steps that AI companies and other actors can take: They can (1) acknowledge that AI welfare is an important and difficult issue (and ensure that language model outputs do the same), (2) start assessing AI systems for evidence of consciousness and robust agency, and (3) prepare policies and procedures for treating AI systems with an appropriate level of moral concern. To be clear, our argument in this report is not that AI systems definitely are, or will be, conscious, robustly agentic, or otherwise morally significant. Instead, our argument is that there is substantial uncertainty about these possibilities, and so we need to improve our understanding of AI welfare and our ability to make wise decisions about this issue. Otherwise there is a significant risk that we will mishandle decisions about AI welfare, mistakenly harming AI systems that matter morally and/or mistakenly caring for AI systems that do not.
Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Three Fresh Ideas
Human-Centered AI (HCAI) is a promising direction for designing AI systems that support human self-efficacy, promote creativity, clarify responsibility, and facilitate social participation. These human aspirations also encourage consideration of privacy, security, environmental protection, social justice, and human rights. This commentary reverses the current emphasis on algorithms and AI methods, by putting humans at the center of systems design thinking, in effect, a second Copernican Revolution. It offers three ideas: (1) a two-dimensional HCAI framework, which shows how it is possible to have both high levels of human control AND high levels of automation, (2) a shift from emulating humans to empowering people with a plea to shift language, imagery, and metaphors away from portrayals of intelligent autonomous teammates towards descriptions of powerful tool-like appliances and tele-operated devices, and (3) a three-level governance structure that describes how software engineering teams can develop more reliable systems, how managers can emphasize a safety culture across an organization, and how industry-wide certification can promote trustworthy HCAI systems. These ideas will be challenged by some, refined by others, extended to accommodate new technologies, and validated with quantitative and qualitative research. They offer a reframe -- a chance to restart design discussions for products and services -- which could bring greater benefits to individuals, families, communities, businesses, and society.
The Future of AI
The Parents’ Paradox: AI, Ethics, and the Limits of Machine Morality This post is based on a talk I gave at The AI & Automation Conference in London on February 25, 2026, and my slides. A…
How Shifting Responsibility for AI Harms Undermines Democratic Accountability | TechPolicy.Press
The moralization of individual AI use deflects responsibility away from powerful actors like corporations and governments, Suvradip Maitra and others write.
2.0 The Ethical Resolution Method (ERM)- A Procedural Framework
# The Ethical Resolution Method (ERM): A Procedural Framework for Evaluating and Stabilizing Moral Norms in Sociotechnical and AI Systems ## Abstract Contemporary artificial intelligence systems increasingly operate within domains governed by moral norms that are inherited, asserted, or enforce...
Future-proofing integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology: prioritizing human rights, dignity, and equity
This article I argue for the prioritisation of human rights when developing and implementing misconduct policies. Existing approaches may be perpetuate inequities, particularly for individuals from marginalised groups. A human-rights-by-design approach, which centres human rights in policy development, revision, and implementation, ensuring that every individual is treated with dignity and respect. Recommendations for implementing a human-rights approach to misconduct investigations and case management are offered, covering areas such as procedural fairness, privacy, equity, and the right to education. Additional topics covered are the need to limit surveillance technologies, and the need to recognize that not all use of artificial intelligence tools automatically constitutes misconduct. I disentangle the differences between equity and equality and explain how both are important when considering ethics and integrity. A central argument of this paper is that a human-rights-by-design approach to integrity does not diminish standards but rather strengthens educational systems by cultivating ethical awareness and respect for personhood. I conclude with a call to action with a seven-point plan for institutions to adopt a human-rights-based approach to ethics and integrity. In the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology, insisting on human rights and dignity when we investigate and address misconduct allegations is an ethical imperative that has never been more important.
AI, Ethics, and Society — Home
AI Ethics Class
Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract
Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, ‘SITL = HITL + Social Contract.’
Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy
This essay focuses on anthropomorphism as both a form of hype and fallacy. As a form of hype, anthropomorphism is shown to exaggerate AI capabilities and performance by attributing human-like traits to systems that do not possess them. As a fallacy, anthropomorphism is shown to distort moral judgments about AI, such as those concerning its moral character and status, as well as judgments of responsibility and trust. By focusing on these two dimensions of anthropomorphism in AI, the essay highlights negative ethical consequences of the phenomenon in this field.
Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy
This essay focuses on anthropomorphism as both a form of hype and fallacy. As a form of hype, anthropomorphism is shown to exaggerate AI capabilities and performance by attributing human-like traits to systems that do not possess them. As a fallacy, anthropomorphism is shown to distort moral judgments about AI, such as those concerning its moral character and status, as well as judgments of responsibility and trust. By focusing on these two dimensions of anthropomorphism in AI, the essay highlights negative ethical consequences of the phenomenon in this field.
Agentic coding and persistent returns to expertise
Anthropic is an AI safety and research company that's working to build reliable, interpretable, and steerable AI systems.
Large-scale harms to AI moral patients: a typology of risk factors
If AI moral patients are mass-produced, then then they will face risks of large-scale harms. This post outlines some factors that could contribute to such risks.
What Does 'Human-Centred AI' Mean?
While it seems sensible that human-centred artificial intelligence (AI) means centring "human behaviour and experience," it cannot be any other way. AI, I argue, is usefully seen as a relationship between technology and humans where it appears that artifacts can perform, to a greater or lesser extent, human cognitive labour. This is evinced using examples that juxtapose technology with cognition, inter alia: abacus versus mental arithmetic; alarm clock versus knocker-upper; camera versus vision; and sweatshop versus tailor. Using novel definitions and analyses, sociotechnical relationships can be analysed into varying types of: displacement (harmful), enhancement (beneficial), and/or replacement (neutral) of human cognitive labour. Ultimately, all AI implicates human cognition; no matter what. Obfuscation of cognition in the AI context -- from clocks to artificial neural networks -- results in distortion, in slowing critical engagement, perverting cognitive science, and indeed in limiting our ability to truly centre humans and humanity in the engineering of AI systems. To even begin to de-fetishise AI, we must look the human-in-the-loop in the eyes.
What Does 'Human-Centred AI' Mean?
While it seems sensible that human-centred artificial intelligence (AI) means centring "human behaviour and experience," it cannot be any other way. AI, I argue, is usefully seen as a relationship between technology and humans where it appears that artifacts can perform, to a greater or lesser extent, human cognitive labour. This is evinced using examples that juxtapose technology with cognition, inter alia: abacus versus mental arithmetic; alarm clock versus knocker-upper; camera versus vision; and sweatshop versus tailor. Using novel definitions and analyses, sociotechnical relationships can be analysed into varying types of: displacement (harmful), enhancement (beneficial), and/or replacement (neutral) of human cognitive labour. Ultimately, all AI implicates human cognition; no matter what. Obfuscation of cognition in the AI context -- from clocks to artificial neural networks -- results in distortion, in slowing critical engagement, perverting cognitive science, and indeed in limiting our ability to truly centre humans and humanity in the engineering of AI systems. To even begin to de-fetishise AI, we must look the human-in-the-loop in the eyes.