Comments
58
As AI systems advance, our interactions with them will inevitably increase. These advancements will have consequences none of us can fully anticipate. With increased power comes more pressing questions of responsibility and an increased concern about losing meaningful human oversight. What perspective can Stoicism offer on individual responsibility in this context?
Stoic philosophy emphasizes focusing on what is within our individual control. One of the three major Stoic philosophers of the late Roman Stoa, Epictetus, expresses this idea through what is referred to as the dichotomy of control.
“Some things are up to us and some are not.” — Epictetus, The Handbook
In essence, Epictetus divides life into what is within our control, such as our judgments, choices, and actions, and what is not within our control, such as outcomes and external events. Using this lens, we must focus our energy on acting with virtue, not on controlling results. Things become tense when applying a seemingly individualist framework to AI development. Stoicism emphasizes individual control, but it also recognizes that we act within systems shaped by others. This makes it more difficult to clearly separate what is in our control from what is not.
The trajectory of AI development will shape the lives of everyone. A small number of companies and governments, alongside independent safety researchers and organizations, shape this path, yet no single actor determines where it leads. Within the AI race, even small decisions in development, deployment, and use can lead to significant downstream effects. This is a coordination problem, where individual actions contribute to outcomes that no single person can fully predict or control. It is also where the Stoic framework is stress tested.
Nevertheless, the fact that no one fully controls AI outcomes does not necessarily mean that individual responsibility disappears. Instead, responsibility is distributed among those working within this system. For humans building or guiding these systems, there is a moral responsibility to make every decision grounded in integrity. The Stoics support this view through the concept of sympatheia, the idea that all things are woven together and that no actor exists in isolation. Each individual action contributes to the whole.
Consider a safety researcher in a lab deciding whether to raise concerns about publishing research on a newly discovered jailbreaking technique. They are faced with decisions around publication that involve uncertainty about risks of misuse by bad actors, and about whether disclosing the information benefits defenders more than attackers. The researcher may not have the final word, but they can control what they advocate for and whether they speak out.
Marcus Aurelius, one of the most prominent Stoic philosophers, commanded the largest empire in the world at the time but still had to govern well under uncertain conditions. When faced with great uncertainty, he relied on what he knew he could control: his integrity, his conduct, and his decisions. The extent of his power did not change what Stoicism asked of him. Aurelius could not determine the fate of Rome, and no single actor will determine the development of AI systems. This framework begins at the individual level and extends to the collective. Stoicism does not resolve all accountability gaps that come with distributed responsibility, nor does it replace the need for stronger institutions and technical safeguards. Yet it still gives each actor a clear question to ask themselves: Am I acting with integrity within my role?
