If machines in post singularity are conscious of their actions then they are responsible for them not humans especially that humans would not have control over machines in post singularity. However, we know that our current development of AI would affect its future and therefore we are somehow responsible for its future actions.
https://medium.com/@melnawawy1980/the-paradox-of-humans-responsibility-for-future-behavior-of-ai-80c301a5a840
The paradox concerning human responsibility for AI behavior is quite thought-provoking. On one hand, humans design, develop, and train AI systems, which means we inherently hold responsibility for their outcomes and ethical implications. This accountability extends to ensuring that AI is programmed to align with human values and societal norms.
as AI systems become more autonomous and capable of self-learning, it raises questions about the extent of this responsibility. If an AI makes a decision or takes an action based on its learning, to what degree can we hold humans accountable for those outcomes? This creates a complex dynamic where the lines of responsibility can blur.
This is a compelling paradox: if AI systems become self-aware post-singularity, it seems logical to shift moral responsibility to them. However, since we design the learning frameworks, reward functions, and interpretability constraints today, we remain accountable for laying the ethical and behavioral foundation of future AI. It's similar to how society holds parents or educators responsible for a child's early development, even if the child later becomes autonomous.
In our paper “Deep Guard”, we emphasized the importance of reinforcement learning governance and trust calibration in high-stakes AI systems. Similarly, our medical imaging frameworks (Neurofusion, RegNet) integrate explainability to ensure AI decisions are auditable—a critical ethical requirement if future AI is to behave responsibly and remain aligned with human values.
Learn More Here:
Article Deep Guard: Fortifying Digital Authenticity with Deep Q-Lear...
I think that the paradox raised is very interesting and I would like to give my opinion on the subject.
On the one hand, if in a post-singularity scenario machines were to become truly conscious of their actions and not just a simulation of decisions, then it would be coherent to attribute moral responsibility to them, as we do to humans. However, this remains speculative (but not impossible) ground.
On the other hand, and this is crucial, the current development of AI directly influences how it will behave in the future. I see it like a small child: at the beginning it is not quite “autonomous” so to speak, but it learns by imitating, absorbing values, biases, limits and examples that we show it. And although it will eventually make decisions on its own, that initial framework we gave it will profoundly shape the way it acts. The same goes for the AI's neural network: the data, algorithms, and goals we teach it today will condition its future decisions.
Thus, the actions of a future AI, even if it becomes fully autonomous, will not be born from nothing, but from a formative process initiated by humans. Thus, although it may eventually be responsible for itself, we will be responsible for having shaped the way it thinks and acts.
In short, the present responsibility is ours, as trainers, and only if it becomes truly conscious will it be able to assume her own future responsibility.
There might be no contradiction between humans’ responsibility for the future consequences of building a super intelligent machine and the accountability of such a machine for its actions in post singularity due to its consciousness and independence. I will illustrate this by comparing the following two examples:
- Alfred Nobel invented dynamite in 1867 which was then used in warfare, a consequence which he has regretted probably leading him to establish the Nobel Prize
- Geoffrey Hinton, known as the Godfather of AI, resigned from his job at Google two years ago, warning of the future risks of this technology, which he had contributed significantly to its development
- In both examples, humans have developed a technology that could cause significant harm if misused, making the developer of this technology morally responsible for such harm.
- In the case of dynamite invention, the misuse of this technology was carried out by humans while in the case of AI, the machine itself possesses advanced capabilities enabling it to make such an impact
Therefore, based on the previous comparison, human is responsible for the risks caused by the actions of a machine which he has developed before it has gained accountability for these actions the same way he’s responsible for the misuse by human of a technology which he has developed
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing