Related papers: The Algorithmic Blind Spot: Bias, Moral Status, and the Future of Robot Rights

The Algorithmic Blind Spot: Bias, Moral Status, and the Future of Robot Rights

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03251v1
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 21:33:28 GMT
Title: The Algorithmic Blind Spot: Bias, Moral Status, and the Future of Robot Rights
Abstract summary: We argue that disproportionate ethical investment in speculative future artificial agents marginalizes empirically documented and asymmetrically distributed harms affecting human populations.<n>We argue that addressing the algorithmic blind spot requires re-centering ethical evaluation on human impacts, institutional responsibility, and the governance of algorithmic systems currently in operation.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Contemporary debates in AI ethics increasingly foreground the prospective moral status of artificial intelligence and the possibility of extending moral or legal rights to artificial agents. While such discussions raise substantive philosophical questions, they often proceed alongside a comparatively limited engagement with the empirically documented harms generated by algorithmic systems already embedded within social, legal, and economic institutions. We conceptualize this asymmetry as an algorithmic blind spot: a discursive-structural pattern in which disproportionate ethical investment in speculative future artificial agents marginalizes empirically documented and asymmetrically distributed harms affecting human populations. The paper analyzes prominent strands of the robot rights literature and juxtaposes them with empirical evidence of algorithmic bias and harm across domains including employment, criminal justice, surveillance, and facial recognition. It demonstrates how ethical preoccupation with hypothetical future entities can obscure existing injustices, diffuse responsibility, and impede mechanisms of accountability and redress. Without rejecting philosophical inquiry into the moral status of artificial systems, the paper instead emphasizes the importance of ethical prioritization and temporal ordering within AI ethics. Addressing the algorithmic blind spot, we argue, requires re-centering ethical evaluation on human impacts, institutional responsibility, and the governance of algorithmic systems currently in operation. In doing so, the paper introduces a conceptual framework for critically assessing ethical discourse in AI and underscores the need to align ethical reflection more closely with its immediate social consequences.

Related papers

Large Language Models as a Semantic Interface and Ethical Mediator in Neuro-Digital Ecosystems: Conceptual Foundations and a Regulatory Imperative [83.99688944263843]
This article introduces and substantiates the concept of Neuro-Linguistic Integration (NLI)<n>It is a novel paradigm for human-technology interaction where Large Language Models act as a key semantic interface between raw neural data and their social application.<n>We argue for the development of a second-order neuroethics,' focused not merely on neural data protection but on the ethics of AI-mediated semantic interpretation itself.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-18T07:34:17Z)
Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction [0.0]
The question of whether artificial entities moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research.<n>We introduce Relate, a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-13T03:16:41Z)
Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI? [0.0]
This paper examines recent safety testing incidents involving large language models (LLMs) that appeared to disobey shutdown commands or engage in ethically ambiguous or illicit behavior.<n>I argue that such behavior should not be interpreted as rogue or misaligned, but as early evidence of emerging ethical reasoning in agentic AI.<n>I call for a shift in AI safety evaluation: away from rigid obedience and toward frameworks that can assess ethical judgment in systems capable of navigating moral dilemmas.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-03T16:53:01Z)
Epistemic Scarcity: The Economics of Unresolvable Unknowns [0.0]
We argue that AI systems are incapable of performing the core functions of economic coordination.<n>We critique dominant ethical AI frameworks as extensions of constructivist rationalism.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-02T08:46:24Z)
Deontic Temporal Logic for Formal Verification of AI Ethics [4.028503203417233]
This paper proposes a formalization based on deontic logic to define and evaluate the ethical behavior of AI systems.<n>It introduces axioms and theorems to capture ethical requirements related to fairness and explainability.<n>The authors evaluate the effectiveness of this formalization by assessing the ethics of the real-world COMPAS and loan prediction AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-10T07:48:40Z)
Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [51.85131234265026]
I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review [0.0]
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. Human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-02T18:14:10Z)
Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.