Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Responsibility in Extensive Form Games (2312.07637v1)

Published 12 Dec 2023 in cs.AI

Abstract: Two different forms of responsibility, counterfactual and seeing-to-it, have been extensively discussed in the philosophy and AI in the context of a single agent or multiple agents acting simultaneously. Although the generalisation of counterfactual responsibility to a setting where multiple agents act in some order is relatively straightforward, the same cannot be said about seeing-to-it responsibility. Two versions of seeing-to-it modality applicable to such settings have been proposed in the literature. Neither of them perfectly captures the intuition of responsibility. This paper proposes a definition of seeing-to-it responsibility for such settings that amalgamate the two modalities. This paper shows that the newly proposed notion of responsibility and counterfactual responsibility are not definable through each other and studies the responsibility gap for these two forms of responsibility. It shows that although these two forms of responsibility are not enough to ascribe responsibility in each possible situation, this gap does not exist if higher-order responsibility is taken into account.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. A STIT logic of responsibility. In Proceeding of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-22), 1717–1719.
  2. Associated Press. 2015. Montana governor frees man convicted in 1979 beating death of classmate. The Guardian, November 20. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/20/montana-governor-grants-clemency-barry-beach.
  3. A game-theoretic account of responsibility allocation. In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21), 1773–1779.
  4. Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37(4): 387–406.
  5. Seeing to it that: a canonical form for agentives. In Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, 167–190. Springer.
  6. The way of the agent. Studia Logica, 51: 463–484.
  7. Voids or fragmentation: moral responsibility for collective outcomes. The Economic Journal, 128(612): F95–F113.
  8. Responsibility voids. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(242): 6–15.
  9. Broersen, J. 2009. A STIT-logic for extensive form group strategies. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, volume 3, 484–487. IEEE.
  10. Using STIT theory to talk about strategies. Models of Strategic Reasoning: Logics, Games, and Communities, 137–173.
  11. A STIT-extension of ATL. In European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 69–81. Springer.
  12. Bullock, S. 2015. Executive Order Granting Clemency to Barry Allan Beach. https://formergovernors.mt.gov/bullock/docs/2015EOs/EO˙19˙2015˙Beach.pdf. Accessed: 2023-05-14.
  13. Mind the gaps: assuring the safety of autonomous systems from an engineering, ethical, and legal perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 279: 103201.
  14. Chellas, B. F. 1969. The logical form of imperatives. Stanford University.
  15. Constitution Convention. 1889. Constitution of the State of Montana. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/1889cons.pdf. Accessed: 2023-05-14.
  16. Duijf, H. 2018. Responsibility voids and cooperation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4): 434–460.
  17. Edwards, J. 2021. Theories of Criminal Law. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2021 edition.
  18. Frankfurt, H. G. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, 66(23): 829–839.
  19. Goetze, T. S. 2022. Mind the gap: autonomous systems, the responsibility gap, and moral entanglement. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 390–400.
  20. Gunkel, D. J. 2020. Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(4): 307–320.
  21. An axiomatic approach to formalized responsibility ascription. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA-22), 435–457. Springer.
  22. Hollingsworth, K. 2007. Responsibility and rights: children and their parents in the youth justice system. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21(2): 190–219.
  23. Action types in STIT semantics. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 10(4): 617–637.
  24. Horty, J. F. 2001. Agency and deontic logic. Oxford University Press.
  25. The deliberative STIT: a study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6): 583–644.
  26. Truth Set Algebra: A New Way to Prove Undefinability. arXiv:2208.04422.
  27. What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)?–A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research. Artificial Intelligence, 296: 103473.
  28. A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(6): 1313–1339.
  29. A logic for reasoning about counterfactual emotions. Artificial Intelligence, 175(3): 814–847.
  30. Matthias, A. 2004. The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6: 175–183.
  31. Montana Board of Pardons and Parole. 2023. History. https://bopp.mt.gov/History. Accessed: 2023-05-14.
  32. Montana Innocence Project. 2023. Never, ever, ever give up: Barry Beach’s resilient fight for freedom. https://mtinnocenceproject.org/barry-beach/. Accessed: 2023-05-26.
  33. Blameworthiness in strategic games. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19), 3011–3018.
  34. An epistemic logic of blameworthiness. Artificial Intelligence, 283: 103269.
  35. Two forms of responsibility in strategic games. In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21).
  36. Inference as doxastic agency. Part I: The basics of justification STIT logic. Studia Logica, 107(1): 167–194.
  37. Perloff, M. 1991. STIT and the language of agency. Synthese, 86: 379–408.
  38. US Supreme Court. 1993. Herrera v. Collins. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/390. 506 U.S. 390.
  39. Widerker, D. 2017. Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities. Routledge.
  40. Xu, M. 1998. Axioms for deliberative STIT. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27(5): 505–552.
  41. Strategic responsibility under imperfect information. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-19), 592–600.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.