Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper presents a theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities when developing AI systems for non-military applications that may nonetheless be used for conflict applications. We argue that AI represents a form of crossover technology that is different from previous historical examples of dual- or multi-use technology as it has a multiplicative effect across other technologies. As a result, existing analyses of ethical responsibilities around dual-use technologies do not necessarily work for AI systems. We instead argue that stakeholders involved in the AI system lifecycle are morally responsible for uses of their systems that are reasonably foreseeable. The core idea is that an agent's moral responsibility for some action is not necessarily determined by their intentions alone; we must also consider what the agent could reasonably have foreseen to be potential outcomes of their action, such as the potential use of a system in conflict even when it is not designed for that. In particular, we contend that it is reasonably foreseeable that: (1) civilian AI systems will be applied to active conflict, including conflict support activities, (2) the use of civilian AI systems in conflict will impact applications of the law of armed conflict, and (3) crossover AI technology will be applied to conflicts that fall short of armed conflict. Given these reasonably foreseeably outcomes, we present three technically feasible actions that developers of civilian AIs can take to potentially mitigate their moral responsibility: (a) establishing systematic approaches to multi-perspective capability testing, (b) integrating digital watermarking in model weight matrices, and (c) utilizing monitoring and reporting mechanisms for conflict-related AI applications.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2024.
Builds on
2 of 34 references.
References · 2
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI?
- 2025From Values to Frameworks: A Qualitative Study of Ethical Reasoning in Agentic AI Practitioners
- 2023Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto
- 2026A three-dimensional typology of agency for advanced AI systems
- 2024Taking AI Welfare Seriously
- 2023Intent-aligned AI systems deplete human agency: the need for agency foundations research in AI safety
- 2026The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers
- 2025Black Box Deployed -- Functional Criteria for Artificial Moral Agents in the LLM Era