ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025
Responsibility Gaps, LLMs & Organisations: Many Agents, Many Levels, and Many Interactions.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific autonomy in the structural bubble: from institutional bias to AI-mediated consensus.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Factors shaping the adoption of large language models among hospital administrative staff: A cross-sectional survey study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we propose a business ethics-inspired approach to address the distribution dimension of responsibility gaps introduced by general-purpose AI models, particularly large language models (LLMs). We argue that the pervasive deployment of LLMs exacerbates the long-standing problem of “many hands” in business ethics, which concerns the challenge of allocating moral responsibility for collective outcomes. In response to this issue, we introduce the “many-agents-many-levels-many-interactions” approach, labelled M3, which addresses responsibility gaps in LLM deployment by considering the complex web of interactions among diverse types of agents operating across multiple levels of action. The M3 approach demonstrates that responsibility distribution is not merely a function of agents’ roles or causal proximity, but primarily of the range and depth of their interactions. Contrary to reductionist views that suggest such complexity inevitably diffuses responsibility to the point of its disappearance, we argue that these interactions provide normative grounds for safeguarding the attribution of responsibility to agents. Central to the M3 approach is identifying agents who serve as nodes of interaction and therefore emerge as key loci of responsibility due to their capacity to influence others across different levels. We position LLM-developing organisations as an example of such agents. As nodes of interactions, LLM-developing organisations exert substantial influence over other agents and should be attributed broader responsibility for harmful outcomes of LLMs. The M3 approach thus offers a normative and practical tool for bridging potential gaps in the distribution of responsibility for LLM deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.