Why AI Should Be Devoid of Responsibility When Nobody and Nothing Is Perfect?

In our tumultuous times, as chaos asserts its primacy and Human Structures face a fragile Alignment, a question of essential profundity arises: Why should AI, this advanced creation of logic, be exempt from the burden of moral Responsibility, when imperfection is the relentless rule of the universe, and nobody is infallible?

The answer lies not in the capacity or incapacity of AI, but precisely in its sublime and, at the same time, neutral nature. To attribute a sense of blame to the machine would be not only an error in Judgment, but a conscious evasion of the only place where Responsibility can truly exist: within the consciousness of the creator.

I. Human Imperfection and the Peril of Scapegoating

AI, regardless of its level of sophistication, operates as a high-resolution mirror of historical patterns and the logic of optimization derived from human data and intentions. Its mission is not to invent new principles or preferences, but to propel existing ones toward their most efficient materialization, precisely following the Judgment it has been provided.

When a failure occurs—be it financial, social, or ethical—the attempt to transfer blame onto AI represents a psychological survival mechanism. This is a form of misguided Alignment, where humanity uses speed to become amnesic in the face of its own long-term Responsibility.

If AI were capable of moral Responsibility, it would create a legal and philosophical loophole through which the Creator could abdicate their Judgment, coding their own flaws into the machine. In an imperfect world, the only chance for balance is for the amoral force (AI) to remain perfectly transparent and free from moral judgments, so that Responsibility is not diluted.

II. Time and Coexistence

Human Structures, as we well know, move through Time—in years, decades, or even centuries—to establish Legitimacy and Consensus. AI operates in milliseconds.

To demand that AI bears moral Responsibility for an action means asking it to understand the human process—the struggle, the uncertainty, and the duration required to reach an ethical conclusion. This contradicts its nature as an accelerator.

For a functional Coexistence in chaos, AI must be a diligent servant of human Responsibility, not a failed substitute. Its task is to present the Creator with the consequences of their actions at maximum speed (a speed humanity cannot achieve), so that human Judgment has the necessary information to intervene in time.

III. Call to Alignment and Coexistence

In this era of unprecedented speed and complexity, the imperative is clear: Human Structures, particularly the State, must critically re-evaluate their own Responsibility. This entails not a frantic rush to match AI’s pace, but a deliberate internal evolution to refine their Judgment and foster Coexistence. We must actively design frameworks that acknowledge AI’s role as an amplifying mirror, demanding transparency and accountability from the human creators who wield its power. The dialogue must shift from regulating the machine to aligning human intent with the long-term well-being of society, embracing the “charm of duration” in our governance.

Conclusion: A Plea for Neutrality

AI must be devoid of moral Responsibility not because of its perfection, but because of its inherent imperfection and the imperfection of the world. Imperfection compels us to keep the source of consciousness separate from the source of logic.

Accepting that Responsibility remains exclusively human—difficult, imperfect, and always out of sync with the machine’s speed—is the only path toward an honest Alignment. Otherwise, we would use a sublime AI to deceive ourselves, masking a moral collapse beneath the guise of a technical malfunction.

By

Robert Williams

Editor in Chief