---
title: "Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI): AI Agents Should Not Hold Management Decisions"
source: "Simon Willison 博客（Atom）"
source_tier: "t2"
url: "https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jul/12/directly-responsible-individuals/#atom-everything"
permalink: "https://feed.astralor.com/items/itm_8da02d59840309d06ef18568"
published: "2026-07-12T23:57:14.000Z"
score: 73
channel: "ai"
tags: ["AI agents","AI Ethics","GitLab","IBM","Directly Responsible Individuals","Apple"]
---

# Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI): AI Agents Should Not Hold Management Decisions

## AI commentary

> This short piece hits the core ethical pain point of AI agent deployment. For team leaders, product managers, and AI ethics researchers who are introducing AI agents, it is a must-read reminder. It makes me think that while pursuing automation efficiency, we must never lose human final arbitration over key decisions.

## At a glance

Simon Willison explores the concept of 'Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI)'—originating at Apple and clearly defined in the GitLab handbook as the person ultimately accountable for a project's success or failure. He argues that no matter how powerful LLM-powered agents become, they should never be considered a DRI, because machines cannot take accountability like humans do. He cites IBM's legendary 1979 training slide: 'A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.'

## Key points

- DRI concept originated at Apple; GitLab handbook provides the best definition.
- LLM-powered agents should never be DRIs because machines cannot take human accountability.
- IBM's 1979 training slide states a computer must never make a management decision.
- The piece emphasizes that AI agents should be tools, not decision-makers in organizations.

## Full text

Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI) I went looking for a definition of "Directly Responsible Individuals" and the best I found was in the GitLab handbook. Apparently the term originated at Apple, where it's used to describe the person who is "ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity". I've been thinking about this term recently in the context of LLM-powered agents and how they fit into human organizations. I don't think an agent should ever be considered the DRI for a project - that's something that feels uniquely human to me, because humans can take accountability for their actions where machines cannot. (See also IBM's legendary 1979 training slide that states "A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.") Tags: apple, management, ai, gitlab, generative-ai, llms, ai-ethics, coding-agents

---

Verify against the original before citing; curated by Astral Feed: https://feed.astralor.com/items/itm_8da02d59840309d06ef18568