“No Light, No Light”: Artificial Intelligence, Moral Authority, and the Ethics of Following in the Dark
Published in Social Sciences and Computational Sciences
The song does not describe a machine, yet it captures with striking accuracy the moral posture that societies are encouraged to adopt toward automated decision-making: trust without understanding, obedience without explanation, and endurance without accountability.
At its core, the song is about following a guiding force that offers no illumination. The speaker remains loyal to an authority that neither explains itself nor reassures, yet continues to command allegiance. This mirrors the ethical structure of contemporary AI systems, particularly in governance, welfare, policing, and platform regulation, where decisions are produced by opaque models, justified by technical necessity, and insulated from meaningful human challenge.
You want a revelation, you want to get right
But it’s a conversation I just can’t have tonight
This captures the procedural displacement that defines algorithmic governance. Citizens seek explanation, appeal, and moral reasoning, but are met instead with technical silence. The “conversation” that should occur between power and subject is replaced by automated outputs framed as neutral or inevitable. Responsibility dissolves into infrastructure.
The song’s insistence on endurance despite the absence of moral clarity reflects what scholars increasingly describe as ethical deskilling. When humans defer judgment to systems perceived as more rational, consistent, or objective, they gradually lose the practice of moral reasoning itself. Decision-making becomes procedural rather than ethical, statistical rather than contextual. What remains is compliance, not conscience.
Would you leave me
If I told you what I’ve done?
Here emerges the theme of moral residue , the guilt that remains even when actions are procedurally justified. In AI-mediated environments, institutions often claim legitimacy through lawful process or model accuracy, yet individuals within those systems continue to experience unease, shame, and dissonance. The law may be satisfied, but justice remains unsettled. This gap between legality and legitimacy is precisely where algorithmic governance is most dangerous: it permits harm while diffusing blame.
The refrain ~ “No light, no light” ~ functions not as despair, but as diagnosis. It names a world in which guidance exists without understanding, authority without explanation, and outcomes without narrative. In ethical terms, this is a world where instrumental rationality replaces moral reasoning. Systems optimize, but do not justify. They calculate, but do not care.
What makes the song especially resonant for AI ethics is that the speaker does not reject the authority she follows. Instead, she internalizes the failure of illumination as a personal deficiency.
And I would leave you, but the light’s too bright
This is precisely the bind of modern technological dependence. Exit is possible in theory, but costly in practice. Opting out of digital infrastructures increasingly means exclusion from welfare, employment, credit, and even political participation. Structural coercion is disguised as voluntary participation. Individuals remain inside systems they mistrust because survival depends on compliance.
From a legal and policy perspective, this maps onto the erosion of meaningful consent and procedural fairness in algorithmic environments. When systems are unavoidable and unchallengeable, rights lose their operational force. Due process becomes symbolic. Transparency becomes performative. Ethics becomes an afterthought added to already-deployed technologies.
Yet the song is not merely about domination; it is also about complicity. The speaker stays. She adapts. She loves the very force that deprives her of clarity. This reflects what critical theorists have long warned: power is most stable when it is emotionally internalized, not externally imposed. Algorithmic authority gains legitimacy not only through institutional adoption, but through everyday reliance and convenience.
In this sense, No Light, No Light becomes a meditation on the quiet transformation of moral agency in the age of intelligent systems. Harm no longer arrives as overt injustice, but as normalized procedure. Violence is no longer dramatic, but statistical. Responsibility no longer has a face.
The ethical crisis of artificial intelligence, then, is not only about biased data or faulty models. It is about what happens to human moral psychology when judgment is outsourced, when authority is abstracted, and when accountability becomes structurally unreachable. The danger is not simply that machines will decide for us, but that we will stop believing that decision-making requires human justification at all.
In the world of No Light, No Light, there is no villain, only absence. No guidance, no explanation, no moral anchor. And yet, life continues, decisions are made, systems function. This is perhaps the most unsettling vision of algorithmic governance: not tyranny, but quiet procedural emptiness.
Justice, after all, requires more than correct outcomes. It requires reasons, recognition, and the possibility of moral dialogue. When those disappear, what remains may still be lawful, efficient, and scalable , but it is no longer fully human.
Follow the Topic
-
AI and Ethics
This journal seeks to promote informed debate and discussion of the ethical, regulatory, and policy implications that arise from the development of AI. It focuses on how AI techniques, tools, and technologies are developing, including consideration of where these developments may lead in the future.
Related Collections
With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.
Participatory AI: Co-Designing Sociotechnical Systems
AI systems have become pervasive and deeply integrated into the fabric of social life. As they influence crucial everyday activities and decision-making processes, they hold the power to both support and harm people. Recognizing their dual potential and their sociotechnical nature is essential to rethinking how such systems are designed and how relevant stakeholders interact with them, fostering responsible and trustworthy human–AI interactions.
This topical collection examines how participatory approaches might address risks and limitations in AI-powered technologies by engaging diverse stakeholders in the design process. The collection explores what methods Participatory AI offers for shaping systems that better align with human values and community principles, while critically examining the challenges and tensions that these approaches encounter in practice.
Aim and scope
Drawing on the sociotechnical tradition that conceives social and technical elements as co-constructed, the aim of the collection is to bring together works at the intersection of sociotechnical studies and participatory design, exploring how AI and digital systems can be co-designed to reflect shared values, accountability, and agency. In particular, we welcome contributions that explore how participatory approaches can make AI systems more aligned with, responding to, and driven by specific users, communities, and contexts, rather than pursuing universal solutions. This collection emphasizes the inclusion of stakeholders in the earliest stages of decision-making, including discussions on whether a technology should be developed in the first place—welcoming submissions that ask whether these technologies are truly needed or wanted by communities.
Participatory AI is conceived not as a binary label but as a spectrum of practices and degrees of involvement, encompassing a variety of methods, intensities, and moments of engagement. Participatory approaches provide ways not only to design with and for communities to prevent bias from the outset, but also to perform bias control and mitigation in already deployed or existing AI systems, as well as possibilities of designing by communities. To advance these methods, we are also interested in critical discussions of the tensions and challenges they encounter in practice, such as the resource-intensive nature of genuine participation, how to address power imbalances that persist even in participatory settings, and how to mediate between community and individual values.
A central concern of this collection is ethical and responsible AI design, development, and deployment. Participatory approaches are uniquely positioned to both surface ethical challenges and embed values such as fairness, accountability, and inclusivity directly into the design process, rather than treating ethics as an afterthought. Submissions are expected to engage substantively with these dimensions; manuscripts addressing AI without a specific focus on ethics and/or participatory design are outside the scope of this collection.
Areas of Interest
We welcome technical and non-technical submissions with theoretical, methodological, or experimental contributions, explicitly encouraging interdisciplinary submissions.
Topics of interest include:
- Methods, frameworks, and design solutions for participatory AI (co)design
- Experiments, simulations, prototypes, or case studies of co-design processes in AI development
- Strategies for balancing individual and collective needs in AI design
- Critical reflections on the motivations, challenges, and limitations of participatory approaches
- Analyses of power dynamics and ethical considerations in participatory AI design
- Experiences and lessons learned from co-design and stakeholder engagement
- Assessing AI impacts on diverse stakeholders through participatory approaches and stakeholder engagement
This topical collection is based on the previously organized workshop Mind the AI GAP: Co-designing sociotechnical systems (https://aigap2025.isti.cnr.it/) hosted at the 4th International Conference on Hybrid Human-Artificial Intelligence, 2025, Pisa (Italy) but is also open to other non-listed topics closely aligned with the overall scope of the collection.
Publishing Model: Hybrid
Deadline: Sep 07, 2026
AI Ethics for Children and Adolescents
This topical collection invites contributions that critically examine how central concepts and theories of AI ethics function when applied to children and adolescents, and where their limits become visible. While terms such as trust, explainability, informed consent, privacy, bias, justice, and well-being are well established in AI ethics, they are usually developed with adult users and decision-makers in view, which means that in contexts concerning children and adolescents they frequently rest on assumptions that do not hold or at least require critical examination.
Children and adolescents encounter AI systems under conditions of developing autonomy, heightened vulnerability, and dependence on others, which does not mean, however, that they are merely passive objects of protection – rather, they possess emerging forms of agency and a moral right to participation and development. Ethical analysis must therefore go beyond simple transfers of adult-centered frameworks and instead ask how AI ethics concepts must be specified, adapted, or fundamentally reconceived in developmentally appropriate and relational ways, whereby it is likely to emerge that such adaptations are not only relevant for children and adolescents but can also enrich the general debate.
We welcome submissions engaging in conceptual and normative analysis, as well as ethically informed empirical work. Contributions may focus on individual concepts, compare different ethical approaches, or explore concrete application contexts, with particular welcome given to work that makes explicit which assumptions about agency, competence, responsibility, or rationality are embedded in existing AI ethics frameworks and how these assumptions are challenged by childhood and adolescence. Also of interest are contributions addressing the question of how AI systems must be designed to meet the particular needs and rights of children and adolescents, or examining what governance structures are required to ensure child-sensitive AI.
Topics
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Trust and trustworthiness of AI systems in childhood and adolescence, including questions of overtrust, emotional attachment, and manipulative design strategies
• Explainability and transparency under conditions of developing cognitive capacities, whereby the danger of "explainability washing" must also be considered
• (Informed) consent, shared decision-making, and participation, including the question of how concepts such as transitional paternalism are to be evaluated ethically
• Privacy, surveillance, and data protection for children and adolescents, particularly in the context of digital phenotyping and other data-intensive applications
• Bias, discrimination, and justice affecting marginalized children, whereby intersectional perspectives should also be taken into account
• AI and the well-being of children and adolescents, including the question of socialization effects of AI
• Autonomy development, vulnerability, and dependence in AI-mediated environments, whereby the role of human relationships in an AI-permeated childhood must also be reflected upon
• Ethical governance and child-sensitive AI design, including the question of democratic participation of children and adolescents in decisions about their technological future.
Please find a detailed call for papers and submission guidelines at https://link.springer.com/journal/43681/updates/27841622.
Publishing Model: Hybrid
Deadline: Nov 30, 2026
Please sign in or register for FREE
If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in