Accountability Asymmetry and Structural Trust in Autonomous AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03670v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 13:47:54 GMT
• Title: Accountability Asymmetry and Structural Trust in Autonomous AI Systems
• Abstract summary: An AI system remains subject to engineering control, but it does not bear consequences in that institutional sense.<n>The deeper problem is that consequence lands on the people and institutions responsible for the system rather than on the component selecting the action.<n>This paper therefore treats autonomous AI governance as a problem of infrastructure reliability.
• Score: 0.16946842589920252
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous AI systems (such as AI agents) are increasingly being delegated operational work across scientific-computing infrastructure. Their assignments may begin with preparing an input or routing an alert and extend to changing a configuration or submitting a job. That delegation creates a practical trust problem because the institutional logic that lets us trust human operators does not transfer to optimization-based systems. A bad decision can damage a human operator's future, sometimes severely. An AI system remains subject to engineering control, but it does not bear consequences in that institutional sense. I use the term accountability asymmetry for this mismatch. The issue is not simply that a model cannot be punished as a person can. The deeper problem is that consequence lands on the people and institutions responsible for the system rather than on the component selecting the action. Alignment can improve model behavior, and liability can discipline the organization, but neither creates the same pre-action deterrent that governs a human operator. This paper therefore treats autonomous AI governance as a problem of infrastructure reliability. Its constructive proposal is engineered heterogeneity: the process that proposes an action should not serve as its sole approver and auditor. Independent monitoring and review over time provide additional checks on that process.

Related papers

• Mechanism Design Is Not Enough: Prosocial Agents for Cooperative AI [49.05972944310475]
  We show that when contracts cannot distinguish all relevant future contingencies, there is a strictly positive welfare loss that no realistic mechanism can eliminate.<n>We show that prosocial agents, who weigh others' welfare alongside their own, can close this gap and achieve outcomes that are socially superior and individually beneficial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T19:37:07Z)
• Automated alignment is harder than you think [41.94180208011558]
  A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve.<n>We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments.<n>This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T15:06:37Z)
• Think Before You Act -- A Neurocognitive Governance Model for Autonomous AI Agents [4.064061517379954]
  The rapid deployment of autonomous AI agents across enterprise, healthcare, and safety-critical environments has created a fundamental governance gap.<n>We address this gap by drawing on how humans self-govern naturally: before acting, humans engage deliberate cognitive processes grounded in executive function.<n>This paper proposes a neurocognitive governance framework that formally maps this human self-governance process to agent reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T14:15:20Z)
• Reciprocal Trust and Distrust in Artificial Intelligence Systems: The Hard Problem of Regulation [0.0]
  Article argues that AI systems should be recognized as artifacts capable of exercising a form of agency.<n>It examines the implications of these reciprocal trust dynamics for regulators tasked with overseeing AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T12:57:16Z)
• I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems [8.670200461690454]
  We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption.<n>We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures.<n>We score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:34:54Z)
• Delegation Without Living Governance [0.0]
  Most governance frameworks assume that rules can be defined in advance, systems can be engineered to comply, and accountability can be applied after outcomes occur.<n>This paper argues that static, compliance-based governance fails once decision-making moves to runtime and becomes opaque.<n>It argues that the core challenge is not whether AI is conscious, but whether humans can maintain meaningful communication, influence, and co-evolution with increasingly alien forms of intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T03:40:40Z)
• A Moral Agency Framework for Legitimate Integration of AI in Bureaucracies [0.0]
  Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)<n>We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T17:49:19Z)
• When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
  We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• Towards evaluations-based safety cases for AI scheming [37.399946932069746]
  We propose three arguments that safety cases could use in relation to scheming. First, developers of frontier AI systems could argue that AI systems are not capable of scheming. Second, one could argue that AI systems are not capable of posing harm through scheming. Third, one could argue that control measures around the AI systems would prevent unacceptable outcomes even if the AI systems intentionally attempted to subvert them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T17:55:29Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.