No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12104v2
• Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 12:49:24 GMT
• Title: No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability
• Abstract summary: We argue that certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort.<n>We introduce the concept of AI unaccountability to capture these configurations.
• Score: 2.665734616339289
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms. Existing research predominantly frames AI accountability gaps as barriers that can be overcome through better standards, transparency, and institutional reform. We argue that this framing is insufficient: certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort. We introduce the concept of constitutive AI unaccountability to capture these configurations. Through a three-stage qualitative study comprising a concept-centric literature analysis, a secondary analysis of 27 expert interviews with AI professionals from technical, legal, and sociotechnical backgrounds, and an illustrative framework application to the open-source agentic AI system OpenClaw, we identify nine categories and 20 themes of constitutive AI unaccountability. These are organized across structural, technological, and normative clusters and reinforce one another through eight directed interdependencies. Our framework is operationalized as a diagnostic instrument of 20 questions, which detected 17 of 20 conditions when applied to OpenClaw, including an inverted anthropomorphism configuration in which the AI agent was the only identifiable actor. We contribute a reframing of AI unaccountability as a constitutive property of sociotechnical systems, an extension of the four barriers to accountability, and a practical instrument for identifying accountability voids in specific AI deployments.

Related papers

• AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems [14.280538199149634]
  This vision paper introduces AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE)<n>ADAE is a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems.<n>We articulate a research agenda built around four interconnected pillars: structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational, and institutional risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T15:18:41Z)
• Security, privacy, and agentic AI in a regulatory view: From definitions and distinctions to provisions and reflections [53.468443050795344]
  The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has led to a dynamic regulatory landscape.<n>As AI paradigms shift towards greater autonomy, specifically in the form of agentic AI, it becomes increasingly challenging to articulate regulatory stipulations.<n>This paper reviews the evolving European Union (EU) AI regulatory provisions via analyzing 24 relevant documents published between 2024 and 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:50:52Z)
• Agentic AI for Cybersecurity: A Meta-Cognitive Architecture for Governable Autonomy [0.0]
  This paper argues that cybersecurity orchestration should be reconceptualized as an agentic, multi-agent cognitive system.<n>We introduce a conceptual framework in which heterogeneous AI agents responsible for detection, hypothesis formation, contextual interpretation, explanation, and governance are coordinated through an explicit meta-cognitive judgement function.<n>Our contribution is to make this cognitive structure architecturally explicit and governable by embedding meta-cognitive judgement as a first-class system function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T12:52:49Z)
• Toward Third-Party Assurance of AI Systems: Design Requirements, Prototype, and Early Testing [16.53658640529767]
  We introduce a third-party AI assurance framework that addresses gaps in AI evaluation.<n>We focus on third-party assurance to prevent conflict of interest and ensure credibility and accountability of the process.<n>Our findings show early evidence that our AI assurance framework is sound and comprehensive, usable across different organizational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T00:37:12Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Understanding AI Trustworthiness: A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles [41.419459280691605]
  Trustworthy AI serves as a foundational pillar for two major AI ethics conferences: AIES and FAccT.<n>This scoping review aims to examine how the AIES and FAccT communities conceptualize, measure, and validate AI trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:40:38Z)
• Accountability Framework for Healthcare AI Systems: Towards Joint Accountability in Decision Making [1.9774267722954466]
  This paper bridges the gap between the ''what'' and ''how'' of AI accountability, specifically for AI systems in healthcare.<n>We do this by analysing the concept of accountability, formulating an accountability framework, and providing a three-tier structure for handling various accountability mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T13:05:29Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Roadmap to Society's Trust through Trustworthy AI, Auditability, Accountability, and Governance [37.10526074040908]
  This paper explores the concept of a responsible AI system from a holistic perspective.<n>The final goal of the paper is to propose a roadmap in the design of responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T14:47:30Z)
• 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.

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