Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Ethics, Design Responsibility, and Moral Agency

The Neutrality of Things

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Research paper.

Written
June 2026
Pages
21
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

The philosophy of technology has long been organized around a binary between instrumentalism, which holds that artifacts are tools whose moral status derives from their use, and substantivism, which holds that artifacts carry embedded values and shape moral possibilities in ways that exceed individual intent. This paper argues that the binary misplaces moral accountability for foreseeable technological harm. The binary forces a choice between locating accountability in the artifact or in the user, while leaving the design decision outside the analytical frame. The paper defends a narrowed neutrality thesis, grounded in the distinction between intrinsic and relational properties and in a three-layer analysis of intent at the build, deployment, and end-use levels; sketches an illustrative pre-industrial genealogy of maker accountability and intermediary responsibility across three legal traditions; and proposes a distributed responsibility framework with four actors (artifact, designer, user, intermediary) and a collapse threshold under which specific knowledge of foreseeable harm plus affirmative choice concentrates responsibility on a single actor. The framework is offered as an analytical tool for the current legal and policy debates over platform-mediated harm to adolescent populations, with a boundary condition identifying where adaptive AI interaction begins to require a different framework than the one developed here.

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Neutrality of ThingsOpen the 15-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Neutrality of Things." Real Safety AI Foundation Research Paper, June 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/the-neutrality-of-things/

References (36)

This list was read from the PDF text. Where the two differ, the PDF is correct.

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.
  2. Cartledge, P. (2002). Sparta and Lakonia: A regional history 1300–362 BC (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  3. Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §230.
  4. Crone, E. A., & Konijn, E. A. (2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications, 9(1), 588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x
  5. Emroch, B. M. (1970). Implied warranty and strict liability: A study of the development of the doctrines. University of Richmond Law Review, 5(1), 25–48.
  6. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. Routledge.
  7. Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.
  8. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
  9. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963).
  10. Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. MIT Press.
  11. Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot rights. MIT Press.
  12. Heyndels, S. (2023). The non-neutrality of technology: Pitt, Heidegger, and the philosophy of artifacts. Philosophy & Technology, 36(2), 1–19.
  13. Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 103 F.4th 732 (9th Cir. 2024).
  14. Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc., 112 F.4th 1168 (9th Cir. 2024).
  15. In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3047, 4:22-md-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (consolidated proceedings, before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers).
  16. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). MIT Press.
  17. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (1916).
  18. Mine Ban Treaty (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction), opened for signature December 3, 1997, 2056 U.N.T.S. 211.
  19. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
  20. Ogilvie, S. (2011). Institutions and European trade: Merchant guilds, 1000–1800. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). Screens, teens, and psychological well-being: Evidence from three time-use-diary studies. Psychological Science, 30(5), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619830329
  22. K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., JCCP No. 5255 (L.A. Super. Ct., verdict March 25, 2026) (bellwether trial in Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255, before Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl).
  23. People v. Crumbley (Jennifer), No. 2021-279030-FC (Oakland Cty. Cir. Ct. Mich. 2024).
  24. People v. Crumbley (James), No. 2021-279031-FC (Oakland Cty. Cir. Ct. Mich. 2024).
  25. Pitt, J. C. (2014). Doing philosophy of technology: Essays in a pragmatist spirit. Springer.
  26. Plutarch. (1914). Life of Lycurgus. In Plutarch’s lives (Vol. 1, B. Perrin, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library.
  27. Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A (1965).
  28. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
  29. Spitzer, M. (2012). Digitale Demenz: Wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen. Droemer.
  30. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., No. 31063/94, 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
  31. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  32. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.
  33. Verbeek, P.-P., & Kudina, O. (2018). Ethics from within: Google Glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918793711
  34. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
  35. Winterbottom v. Wright, 152 Eng. Rep. 402 (Ex. 1842).
  36. Xenophon. (1925). Constitution of the Lacedaemonians. In Xenophon: Scripta minora (E. C. Marchant, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library.

All research