# We Need Accountability in Human-AI Agent Relationships

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21967 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21967/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2025.

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Autonomy and Agency in Agentic AI: Architectural Tactics for Regulated Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12105/) (2026)
- [Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23315/) (2026)
- [The Governance of Human-LLM Interaction: Safety Gating, Civility Steering, and Affective Default Lock-In](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08172/) (2026)
- [AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02660/) (2026)
- [How AI Assistants Respond to Repeated Abuse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17547/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We argue that accountability mechanisms are needed in human-AI agent relationships to ensure alignment with user and societal interests. We propose a framework according to which AI agents' engagement is conditional on appropriate user behaviour. The framework incorporates design-strategies such as distancing, disengaging, and discouraging.