No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability
arXiv:2608. 12104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms.
The paper examines how responsibility is assigned when AI systems fail, proposing a sociotechnical theory that distinguishes between AI incidents, organisational crises, and scandals. It argues that the configuration of an incident shapes actor-specific attribution, which in turn influences perceptions of capability, integrity, fairness, and relationships, and that public moralisation can elevate an incident to scandal. The authors introduce ‘accountable transparency’—a response framework combining timely notice, intelligible accounts, role acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse—as a way to manage blame, trust, and communication credibility.
arXiv:2608. 12104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms.
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.
The paper proposes AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE), a new subdiscipline focused on establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for AI systems once they are deployed. ADAE treats accountability as a deployment-layer property, aiming to ensure systems remain within acceptable risk limits, identify failure contexts, attribute failures across technical and human components, and translate technical failures into downstream consequences. The authors outline a research agenda built around four 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—to support timely intervention in safety-critical socio-technical environments.
The paper presents LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five dimensions of accountability and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—each assessed for maturity. The framework is mapped onto major regulatory standards (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001) and highlights persistent gaps such as under‑specified human oversight and lack of shared accountability metrics.
arXiv:2607. 24243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high.
As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain.
arXiv:2606. 00621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced.
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.
arXiv:2608. 12863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved.
arXiv:2607. 24391v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems already govern.
The paper introduces LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five accountability dimensions and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—evaluated across maturity levels. The framework maps onto major standards such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and sectoral guidance, highlighting gaps in human oversight, accountability metrics, disciplinary alignment, and empirical validation.