  How to attribute responsibility for autonomous artificial intelligence (AI)
systems' actions has been widely debated across the humanities and social
science disciplines. This work presents two experiments ($N$=200 each) that
measure people's perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility
concerning AI and human agents in the context of bail decision-making. Using
real-life adapted vignettes, our experiments show that AI agents are held
causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical
task. However, there was a meaningful difference in how people perceived these
agents' moral responsibility; human agents were ascribed to a higher degree of
present-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibility than AI agents.
We also found that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors
to justify their decisions regardless of their nature. We discuss policy and
HCI implications of these findings, such as the need for explainable AI in
high-stakes scenarios.
