Legal personhood for the integration of AI systems in the social context: a study hypothesis

Abstract

In this paper, I shall set out the pros and cons of assigning legal personhood on artificial intelligence systems (AIs) under civil law. More specifically, I will provide arguments supporting a functionalist justification for conferring personhood on AIs, and I will try to identify what content this legal status might have from a regulatory perspective. Being a person in law implies the entitlement to one or more legal positions. I will mainly focus on liability as it is one of the main grounds for the attribution of legal personhood, like for collective legal entities. A better distribution of responsibilities resulting from unpredictably illegal and/or harmful behaviour may be one of the main reasons to justify the attribution of personhood also for AI systems. This means an efficient allocation of the risks and social costs associated with the use of AIs, ensuring the protection of victims, incentives for production, and technological innovation. However, the paper also considers other legal positions triggered by personhood in addition to responsibility: specific competencies and powers such as, for example, financial autonomy, the ability to hold property, make contracts, sue (and be sued).

Embedding AI in society: ethics, policy, governance, and impacts

“…Examples are the regulatory and legal debates about the implementation and use of AI applications. Novelli (2022) justifies a claim that AI entities should be given personhood, demonstrating the potential liability and harmful behavioral concerns that might arise if this is not done. He also discusses other potential legal ramifications of personhood like contracts and lawsuits.…”

Assessing Deep Learning: A Work Program for the Humanities in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

“…As well as the risk of confused thinking, it also renders difficult the practical task for distinguishing between human beings, AIs, and robots, and thus conflicts with the democratic organization of our societies around the unique worth and dignity of human beings. If we are but machines, then why grant us special status among other machines [61][62][63][64]? Although the confusion of human beings with machines, and especially computers, has a long history [65][66][67][68], notable recent achievements in DL have greatly contributed to the myth of the 'electronic person'-as seen, for instance, in a work by the European Commission to address the status of sophisticated robots in terms of 'persons' [69].…”

Locating Responsibility in the Future of Human–AI Interactions

“…Is it with the human operator, AI developer, user, or the AI agent itself? In the case of failure, AI cannot be held accountable, as such software systems are not yet recognized as separate legal entities [2].…”