Theories of action tend to require agents to have mental representations. A common trope in discussions of artificial intelligence (AI) is that they do not, and so cannot be agents. Properly understood there may be something to the requirement, but the trope is badly misguided. Here we provide an account of representation for AI that is sufficient to underwrite attributions to these systems of ownership, action, and responsibility. Existing accounts of mental representation tend to be too demanding and unparsimonious. We (...) offer instead a minimalist account of representation that ascribes only those features necessary for explaining action, trimming the “extra” features in existing accounts (e.g., representation as a “mental” phenomenon). Our account makes ‘representation’ whatever it is that, for example, the thermostat is doing with the thermometer. The thermostat is disposed to act as long as the thermometer is outside a given range of parameters.. Our account allows us to offer a new perspective on the ‘responsibility gap’, a problem raised by the actions of sophisticated machines: because nobody has enough control over the machine’s actions to be able to assume responsibility, conventional approaches to responsibility ascription are inappropriate. We argue that there is a distinction between finding responsible and holding responsible and, in order to resolve the responsibility gap, we must first clarify the conceptual terrain on which agent is in fact responsible. (shrink)

An assumption underpinning the literature on human shields is that it is possible to distinguish between a voluntary shield and an involuntary shield. This is a claim I challenge with the purpose of demonstrating that the conventional basis on which we currently determine which human shields are liable to targeting is morally unjustifiable. Given the difficulty in tracking intentions, any presumption on the part of the targeting agent to know ex ante whether a civilian is volunteering to be a shield (...) cannot be adequately substantiated. I argue that, in lieu of categorising human shields as ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’, we accept our epistemic limitations and recognise that we cannot know whether a shield has volunteered in the relevant sense of the word. This leads me to the conclusion that shields ought not be considered direct participants in hostilities, but rather be presumed to be non-combatants. (shrink)