2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-016-9192-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy

Abstract: Robots are now associated with various aspects of our lives. These sophisticated machines have been increasingly used in different manufacturing industries and services sectors for decades. During this time, they have been a factor in causing significant harm to humans, prompting questions of liability. Industrial robots are presently regarded as products for liability purposes. In contrast, some commentators have proposed that robots be granted legal personality, with an overarching aim of exonerating the res… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another possible solution that has been proposed by the European Union is creating a new legal status only for robots [40] [41]. There is a tendency to humanize robots if robots have grown sophisticated enough to exhibit "human behavior."…”
Section: Possible Solutions To the Dilemma Of Liabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Another possible solution that has been proposed by the European Union is creating a new legal status only for robots [40] [41]. There is a tendency to humanize robots if robots have grown sophisticated enough to exhibit "human behavior."…”
Section: Possible Solutions To the Dilemma Of Liabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The possibility of creating a specific legal status for the most sophisticated robots (named electronic persons) and to apply electronic personality to cases where sophisticated robots make autonomous decision or interact with third parties [40]. Having a legal status of "electronic person" is seen as similar to the legal personality of a corporation, robots could be held liable for their behaviors and enter into legal agreements [41]. The creation of a separate status for robots would introduce a clear and separate entity in which the actions and behavior of robots are controlled and managed separately from the owner [43].…”
Section: Possible Solutions To the Dilemma Of Liabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complexity of an AI system may necessitate a simplified model to remedy the damages caused by untraceable errors, or even sheer bad luck, to ensure that any legal proceeding does not become so unwieldy as to effectively preclude an injured party from recovering damages. Although some commentators have criticised the idea of personality for AI on the basis that they cannot assume rights and duties (Bryson et al 2017;Solaiman 2016), this seems to have begged the question of why they should not assume such rights and duties. Indeed, they can be considered a bundle or package of rights, duties and responsibilities like corporations (Vladeck 2014).…”
Section: Ai Versus Simentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 The quote continues: "To confer legal rights or to impose legal duties, therefore, is to confer legal personality." For recent reference to this quote, see, for example, Bryson et al (2017),Solaiman (2016). Another useful, and complimentary, definition of is provided by Radin (1932): "'person' or a 'personality,' it is declared, is not a human being nor anything given in nature, but a group of rights and capacities, or at any rate a group of legal relations, and this group owes its existence entirely to the recognition of it by the legal and institutional organization of the community.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent developments in robotics and machine learning are initiating a "new generation of systems that rival or exceed human capabilities" (Kaplan 2015, 3). Advances in technology of this kind, for example in the form of intelligent military robots (Hellström 2013;Sparrow 2007), industrial robots (Solaiman 2017), or self-driving cars (Nyholm and Smids 2016), have far-reaching moral, social, and legal consequences. They generate philosophical questions, such as whether robots can be held morally and legally responsible for their actions (Gunkel 2017;Matthias 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%