Human Goals Are Constitutive of Agency in Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata
Matthias, A. (2004) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1 · Cited by 1,101 · cited 3× · see citing works
“While I do not disagree with Matthias (2004) in holding that people should not be blamed for things they had no full control of (in this case, involving operations performed by machines), I argue for a more complex picture, taking social and normative factors into consideration that went into…”
BackgroundInfluentialArtificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment
Gabriel, I. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 · Cited by 896 · cited 4× · see citing works
“In criticizing this view, Johnson (2006) points out that even though moral agents in general may exhibit these features, one cannot ignore that artificial systems were designed by humans and perform their functions within a social setting. As such, choosing this specific level of abstraction appears to miss one centra…”
BackgroundInfluentialKitcher, P. (2011) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674063075 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Wiener, N. (1960) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.131.3410.1355 · Cited by 367 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The central normative claim in this context is that AI should align with human goals, and this point has been made in ethical context since the beginnings of AI research (Wiener, 1960), with a more recent formulation in Asilomar and Principles, 2017).”
BackgroundA Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science
Elliott, K. C. (2017) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
“These agents are defined by their ability to perceive structured or unstructured inputs [46], to reason over contextual information [47,48], and to initiate actions toward achieving specific objectives, often acting as surrogates for human users or subsystems [49].”
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2025) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i3.15161 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Gubelmann, R. (2024) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00696-1 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Popa, E.
- Affiliations
- Asian University for Women (BD)
- Corresponding author
- Popa, Elena
- ORCID
- Popa, Elena
- Venue
- Philosophy & Technology
- Published
- 2021-10-23
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1731-1750
- ISSN
- 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-5441
- OpenAlex
- W3210886175
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 6.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
- Keywords
- artificial agency, human goals, teleology, moral responsibility, autonomous AI systems, philosophy of action, agency attribution, AI ethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review