Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the attribution of agency and moral responsibility to large language models (LLMs), arguing that such claims are fundamentally flawed. It posits that true moral responsibility requires intrinsic intentionality and self-attributed action, which LLMs lack due to their reliance on probabilistic mappings rather than genuine decision-making. The authors contend that the variability in LLM outputs from stochastic sampling does not equate to authentic choice or authorship, undermining claims of moral agency.
LLMs may produce coherent outputs, but they lack the intrinsic intentionality necessary for moral agency, challenging the narrative of AI as moral actors.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have prompted claims that such systems exhibit agency or qualify as moral agents. This paper argues that these attributions are misguided. We maintain that moral responsibility requires commitment-bearing agency grounded in intrinsic intentionality and self-attributed action, and that such agency constitutes the form of free will relevant to responsibility. Although LLMs generate coherent and normatively evaluable outputs, their operation is fully characterized by probabilistic input-output mappings learned from data. Their apparent intentionality is derived rather than intrinsic, and their outputs are neither owned as commitments nor guided by reasons. Variability introduced by stochastic sampling does not amount to choice or authorship. We address objections from the intentional stance, functionalism, compatibilism, and the presence of moral reasoning in model outputs, arguing that none suffice to establish genuine agency.