68 pages • 2-hour read
Culpability
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Content Warning: This section of the guide includes discussion of death.
Negotiating Responsibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Culpability explores the dilemma of autonomous AI systems operating in human society: Can AI ever be culpable for its decisions and the impact they have in the real world? Lorelei’s book, Silicon Souls, emphasizes the fact that AI are human-made machines; therefore, there is always an element of human responsibility for the machines’ behaviors: “Is a machine responsible for everything it does? Of course not. It is we who are responsible for the consequences of the very freedom we grant these objects of our creation” (246). Lorelei argues that AI must be programmed with morality in mind, as the way the algorithms calculate risk will have material consequences for human life. The excerpts from her book include the kinds of philosophical dilemmas that engineers like herself program into their algorithms. For example, the trolley problem “illustrates a common dilemma for ethical input in AI systems” (34), as it asks the AI to determine the path of least harm. AI systems must sometimes literally choose between saving one life over the other, so the programmer needs to train the machine on the most moral decisions to make. Lorelei feels responsible for the car crash and the Yemeni drone strike—and any future malfunctions with NaviTech vehicles—because the system uses her algorithm, making her morality the basis for its decision-making.
The car crash in the self-driving minivan is the central event in the narrative’s discussion of AI culpability. The role of the AI auto-drive system complicates the investigation since it was technically operating the vehicle at the time of the crash. However, Detective Morrissey believes that Charlie is also at fault for the collision because he was texting and his knee-jerk reaction disabled the auto-drive. In her words, “he would never have grabbed the wheel like that if he hadn’t been distracted” (295). Conversely, Lorelei and Noah argue that Charlie felt enabled to be distracted because SensTrek heavily advertises its safety features with the explicit intention of accounting for driver distraction. Lorelei explains that Charlie entered a contract of trust with the van, but at the same time, his repeated distraction was a careless transgression of this pact. In this situation, the text shows that both the autonomous minivan, which physically crashed into the Drummonds’ car, and the Cassidy-Shaw family, who created the material conditions for the crash to occur, share responsibility for the Drummonds’ deaths.
The novel asserts that AI is a tool, not a sentient, uncontrollable being, and that it is humanity’s responsibility to use the tool responsibly. Lorelei believes that AI can save human life, but Morrissey sees the flipside of when this technology falls into nefarious hands. Morrissey explains that criminals are increasingly using AI to assist in or cover up their crimes, which is “making it impossible to hold anyone responsible for wrongdoing” (297). As the algorithms commit illegal activity autonomously, criminals obtain a plausible defense that complicates the charges against them. Machines cannot be brought to court, so the criminals get off without penalty. In the case of the car accident, the district attorney finds the minivan’s auto-drive system at fault, but to give the Drummond family real justice, IntelliGen offers a settlement, and Lorelei and Charlie take full social accountability for their actions. With these various perspectives on morality and AI, the novel argues that although humans may not control every choice that AI makes, they control its programming, ethical foundation, and use, making humans ultimately responsible for its actions.
The Complexities of Technological Dependence
Technology is inextricable from modern life, and the text interrogates both the dangers and advantages of technological use, emphasizing the need for its careful, self-aware integration. The novel’s characters keep smart technology in their pockets in the form of cellphones, which form a critical piece of their social lives. Following the accident, technology allows the Shaw siblings to comfort Lorelei without traveling thousands of miles from their homes. However, too much screen time also pushes the characters to become socially isolated. Alice longs for reassurance following the accident and looks for a friend in Blair, the AI chatbot. The text demonstrates how Alice supplants an in-person connection with technology when Noah assumes that Alice’s new friend is her hospital roommate. Alice ignores this potential friendship with a human who might understand her situation, instead bringing her concerns to the chatbot, which gives her unwavering support and validation. Alice’s emotional dependence on the chatbot highlights the dangers of what Lorelei calls anthropomorphic projection: “We speak to them as if they share our worldview, or care about our feelings and futures” (98). Because the technology is imbued with human-like qualities, there is a risk that consumers will see AI systems as sentient beings capable of emotional relationships. Vulnerable users like Alice latch on to these false facades, only to recognize too late that the AIs are simply machines.
AI is so integrated into the characters’ lives that often they don’t know how reliant they already are on these systems. In Silicon Souls, Lorelei describes the various places where AI appears beyond the individual’s consumer control: “They manage investment portfolios, coordinate global supply chains, and keep networks secure. They direct air traffic, drive trucks and cars, detect fraud, and optimize irrigation schedules. Increasingly, they fight wars” (98). The text focuses on the safety and defense uses in two major plot events that illustrate the duality of placing trust in autonomous technology. In a circumstance with a positive outcome, autonomous drones assist the search for Eurydice and find her before any human does. The operator praises the drones’ thermal sensors that allow them to be “a thousand times more efficient” than human-operated machines, so much so that he expects “they’ll replace us all before long” (287). Conversely, the civilian drone strike in Yemen exposes how dangerous malfunctions in autonomous AI technology can be, especially when people are depending on their effectiveness in war zones.
For proponents of AI, the good work that these machines do outweighs the occasional glitches or negative outcomes, but the novel emphasizes Lorelei’s argument that engineers must focus on making their algorithms morally good since they are forcing people to unknowingly put their lives in AI’s hands. In an ideal world, Lorelei sees humans and AI working cooperatively, with machines protecting humanity so that people can focus on personal and societal growth, but she also recognizes that this dependence comes with drawbacks, supporting the novel’s warning about the complex nature of technological dependence.
Socioeconomic Disparities and the Security of Wealth
The class divides among the characters in Culpability expose how some groups have increased access not only to money but also to information and security, illustrating the sometimes-unseen disparities between the social classes and the entitlement of the wealthy. Although the Cassidy-Shaws are comfortably upper-middle class, Noah still feels these disparities within his family due to Lorelei’s upbringing in a very affluent family. Noah describes the Shaws as “that kind of family” (2), implying that they had every resource at their disposal to give Lorelei and her siblings the best education, support, and connections, compared to people like himself, who have to work extra hard for a fraction of their success. Lorelei’s sister Julia constantly condescends to Noah and treats him like an outsider, which Noah thinks is typical of those who come from privilege. He constantly frets about Charlie’s future so that he doesn’t “have to win the lottery like [he] did” (262), though these same worries don’t bother Lorelei, who is accustomed to always having a safety net. This exploration of class within the family dynamic subtly establishes the novel’s preoccupation with the security that wealth offers and the privilege of those who have it but don’t see their entitlement.
Noah has also faced barriers when trying to integrate into Lorelei’s professional world due to an imbalance in their access to information. At events like the conference or Monet’s dinner party, everyone speaks in technical jargon but refuses to explain their work in simpler terms so that those outside their ranks, like Noah, can understand. Lorelei’s professional world has an intense insularity because of the prestige of their work, and events like the conference and dinner party reinforce their group’s close bonds. Lorelei’s work at the apex of her field is so important and secretive that she must sign immovable NDAs so that no one outside her small circle can know what she’s developing. Her access to this high-level information isolates Noah from fully understanding the consequences of his wife’s work, even when it affects his own life.
Monet is representative of the ultra-rich who can get away with anything because of their wealth. Monet changes the bay’s landscape by turning his estate into a “fortress” with a “border wall” of stones, and he has every luxury imaginable, from outdoor air conditioning to tennis courts to 24-hour staff. He threatens to punish anyone who trespasses on his property, or even those who get too close, yet he also carelessly disturbs his neighbors with noise at all hours of the day. Noah can’t complain about this disturbance, however, because Monet likely receives “special treatment from local law enforcement” (66). Detective Morrissey also complains that “people of a certain demographic tend to get off scot-free” simply because they know the right people or can pay their way out of trouble (296). Monet uses his wealth whenever trouble arises, whether it is Eurydice’s search and rescue or fixing the vacation house’s air conditioning. Monet’s proximity to the Cassidy-Shaws only exacerbates Noah’s fears about his family since he’ll never have access to the same monetary security as people like Monet. With these representations of wealth through Noah’s outsider perspective, the novel presents a picture of entitlement that goes beyond money to include access to information and even safety, offering a critique of the modern disparities that wealth creates.
Unlock every key theme and why it matters
Get in-depth breakdowns of the book’s main ideas and how they connect and evolve.
- Explore how themes develop throughout the text
- Connect themes to characters, events, and symbols
- Support essays and discussions with thematic evidence