Legal Responsibilities Using Autonomous Agents For Artificial Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08022v1
• Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 09:05:10 GMT
• Title: Legal Responsibilities Using Autonomous Agents For Artificial Intelligence
• Abstract summary: Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents pose looming questions about who should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage.<n>As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage. As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions, based on the Downstream Principle for causal influence. Responsibility can easily be expanded to include AI agents where tracing responsibility becomes impactical, and agents' freedoms to act can be limtied by policy choices.

Related papers

• Agents of Chaos [50.53354213047402]
  We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment.<n>Twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions.<n>Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:28:48Z)
• Operational Agency: A Permeable Legal Fiction for Tracing Culpability in AI Systems [0.31061678033205636]
  This Article introduces Operational Agency (OA)-a permeable legal fiction structured as an ex post evidentiary framework-and Operational Agency Graph (OAG)<n>OA evaluates an AI's observable operational characteristics.<n>OAG operationalizes that analysis by embedding these characteristics in a causal graph to trace and apportion culpability among developers, fine-tuners, deployers, and users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T01:49:03Z)
• Toward a Theory of Agents as Tool-Use Decision-Makers [89.26889709510242]
  We argue that true autonomy requires agents to be grounded in a coherent epistemic framework that governs what they know, what they need to know, and how to acquire that knowledge efficiently.<n>We propose a unified theory that treats internal reasoning and external actions as equivalent epistemic tools, enabling agents to systematically coordinate introspection and interaction.<n>This perspective shifts the design of agents from mere action executors to knowledge-driven intelligence systems, offering a principled path toward building foundation agents capable of adaptive, efficient, and goal-directed behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T07:52:16Z)
• 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)
• Agentic AI Needs a Systems Theory [46.36636351388794]
  We argue that AI development is currently overly focused on individual model capabilities.<n>We outline mechanisms for enhanced agent cognition, emergent causal reasoning ability, and metacognitive awareness.<n>We emphasize that a systems-level perspective is essential for better understanding, and purposefully shaping, agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T22:51:32Z)
• Governing AI Agents [0.2913760942403036]
  Article looks at the economic theory of principal-agent problems and the common law doctrine of agency relationships.<n>It identifies problems arising from AI agents, including issues of information asymmetry, discretionary authority, and loyalty.<n>It argues that new technical and legal infrastructure is needed to support governance principles of inclusivity, visibility, and liability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T07:55:18Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems [1.0549609328807565]
  It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating. This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z)
• A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive [0.0]
  Historical instances of harm caused by AI have led to European Union establishing an AI Liability Directive. The future ability of provider to contest a product liability claim will depend on good practices adopted in designing, developing, and maintaining AI systems. This paper provides a risk-based approach to examining liability for AI-driven injuries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T15:52:43Z)
• Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too [51.37368267352821]
  Work in responsible artificial intelligence (RAI), ethical AI, or ethics in AI is no exception. Work in responsible artificial intelligence (RAI), ethical AI, or ethics in AI is no exception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T14:02:28Z)
• Unravelling Responsibility for AI [0.8472029664133528]
  It is widely acknowledged that we need to establish where responsibility lies for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems.<n>This paper presents a conceptual framework of responsibility, accompanied with a graphical notation and general methodology.<n>It unravels the concept of responsibility to clarify that there are different possibilities of who is responsible for AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-04T13:12:17Z)

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.