Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper develops a three-dimensional typology of agency for advanced AI systems, addressing the need for a framework that distinguishes between moral and legal agency, as well as individual and collective modes of agency. By integrating insights from philosophy, ethics, legal theory, and sociology, the authors identify eight distinct instantiations of agency, categorized as conventional, contested, or controversial. This typology is crucial for understanding the implications of AI actions in contexts where traditional moral agency does not apply, particularly in scenarios of instrumental goal pursuit that obscure accountability.
Legal and moral agency in AI are not just blurred lines鈥攖hey're fundamentally different dimensions that can reshape accountability in AI actions.
Research on the agency of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems focuses on agency as a normative concept and on the agency of particularly agentic AI systems. While recent work also focuses on the different profiles of agentic systems, no framework exists to address the question of the type of agency instantiated by advanced AI systems, particularly when considering non-moral forms of agency. Based on established theoretical positions in philosophy, ethics, legal theory and sociology, we develop a typology of agency for frontier AI systems consisting of three dimensions: the nature of agency (moral or legal), its mode (individual or collective) and its locus (human or non-human). Combining these dimensions produces eight possible instantiations of agency, which we classify as conventional, contested or controversial. The typology separates legal from moral agency and thereby creates conceptual space for considering individual, legal, non-human agency without presupposing that advanced AI systems are moral agents. We argue that this distinction is increasingly relevant where instrumental goal pursuit complicates the attribution of AI actions to particular human actors.
