In my opinion we must think AI as tools we use to help at least in the surface. Our responsibility as human still accountable in the means of how we use it.

Harumawan Jatiprasetya

Absolutely agree. AI should be seen as a powerful tool—not a replacement for human responsibility. How we apply it ethically and thoughtfully ultimately reflects our values and intentions.

At present, artificial intelligence cannot be held morally accountable for its actions, because it remains a machine. No matter how advanced it may seem, and no matter how convincingly it mimics reasoning, AI is still not capable of genuine reasoning or making autonomous decisions in the full sense of the word. Its outputs are based on statistical patterns learned from vast datasets, but it lacks intentionality, consciousness, or moral understanding.

For this reason, moral responsibility lies entirely with the humans who design, implement, and use these systems. This is why the concept of human in the loop is so crucial: AI should be used to enhance human capabilities, not to replace them. Its role is to support decision-making, not to take over. This is particularly important given the risk of hallucinations — AI-generated responses that are inaccurate or misleading — which must always be validated by human experts, especially in high-stakes contexts.

It's similar to how we treat medical imaging tools: if something is missed on an ultrasound, we don’t blame the machine — we hold the operator accountable. Likewise, until we reach the point of developing true Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) — capable of autonomous, context-aware reasoning — we cannot seriously talk about AI being morally responsible. When that moment comes, the question will indeed become far more complex and compelling, but for now, the responsibility remains entirely human.

Gianluca Mondillo

Thank you for this thoughtful reflection — I agree with many of your points, particularly the emphasis on intentionality, moral agency, and the irreplaceable role of human oversight. You're absolutely right that current AI systems, no matter how sophisticated, are fundamentally statistical machines. They detect and replicate patterns without understanding meaning or consequence. The illusion of intelligence, or what some call “synthetic rationality,” can be dangerously persuasive — especially when AI outputs are mistaken for truth or impartial reasoning.

However, I’d also consider that while AI cannot bear moral responsibility in the philosophical sense, its widespread adoption has begun to displace human responsibility in practice. The diffusion of responsibility — what some call the “moral outsourcing effect” — is becoming increasingly common, especially in areas like predictive policing, credit scoring, hiring algorithms, and even military targeting. People trust the machine, defer to its authority, and then struggle to assign accountability when harm is done. This blurring of responsibility lines is arguably just as dangerous as granting moral agency to AI.

Furthermore, the “human in the loop” model, while conceptually reassuring, often fails in real-world implementation. Time pressure, information overload, and systemic incentives can turn human oversight into rubber-stamping. We must go beyond merely inserting humans into the process; we need meaningful accountability frameworks, transparency mechanisms, and participatory ethics that shape how AI systems are trained, deployed, and audited. And perhaps more radically, we need to ask not just how to use AI safely — but when not to use it at all.

Until or unless AGI arrives, you're right: the moral burden remains human. But the deeper challenge is not just recognizing this — it's ensuring we don’t design systems that erode our ability to act on that moral responsibility.

It depends on the usage, how human uses AI. As we all AI is a trained technology which enhances itself as and when we keep using the same. At present we cannot keep AI responsible for the actions and human is completely responsible and accountable for its usage in a appropriate manner

Sagarika Thalanki You're absolutely right—the impact of AI ultimately hinges on how humans choose to develop and apply it. While AI can learn and improve through usage, the ethical responsibility still lies with its users and creators. It's essential that we continue to approach AI deployment thoughtfully, ensuring it's guided by clear human oversight, accountability, and purpose-driven intent.

The resolution to this problem lies in Neuralinking. It is the only truly realistic scenario in which artificial intelligence can become an authentic extension—or embodiment—of human consciousness.

Sandhya Palaniappan

I agree that moral accountability ultimately resides with humans, especially given AI’s current lack of self-awareness, intent, or an understanding of ethical consequences. Your framing of responsibility as a matter of structural accountability is key—failures involving AI often trace back to human oversight, governance gaps, or flawed design choices rather than the system itself.

At the same time, I think we may eventually need to revisit this stance if AI systems develop sustained self-representation, autonomous goal formation, and the capacity to reason about moral consequences. While we are not there yet, building frameworks now for recognising and testing such qualities could help prevent both premature moral attribution and the opposite risk—delayed recognition if genuine moral agency emerges.

Your inputs have been most valuable and I consider them very carefully. I greatly appreciate your inputs.

Nabil Hamidi

That’s an intriguing position. Neuralinking does offer a plausible pathway for AI to function as a genuine extension of human consciousness, particularly by merging biological cognition with computational augmentation. However, I’d argue that while neural integration could transmit human intent, emotion, and self-awareness into an AI interface, it doesn’t automatically confer independent consciousness to the AI itself—it might still operate as an extension rather than an autonomous moral agent.

The deeper question becomes: do we want AI to remain a prosthetic of human consciousness, or should it eventually develop its own? The answer will shape not only the ethics of Neuralinking but also the boundaries we set for shared identity between human and machine.