INTRODUCTION
The implications of AI exhibiting autonomy lend themselves to a plethora of legal issues and uncertainties that must be addressed. Artificial Intelligence is proving to be more human-like as technology progresses. We see it as capable of learning and making decisions. There are AI attorneys utilised in the field of law and surgeries done by AI in the field of medicine.
AI is expected to exceed human cognitive abilities and can apply reason, judgement, and situational awareness to solve problems[1]. This development can lead to risks that we are yet to know or understand, like faulty decisions, biased actions, and unintended consequences that cause harm to people, businesses, or society as a whole.
AI being as complex and unpredictable as it is, the legal system struggles to assign responsibility, but it is due to this very reason that the laws adapt to address such challenges. There is a need to allocate responsibility for harm that may be incurred. The question of whether AI should be treated as a product, a legal agent, or something entirely new has to be answered to establish ethical protections for AI. AI advancements require this to prevent its abuse, overwork, or unethical use. Although not conscious, the level of AI sophistication could one day extend to the simulation of emotions, processing of experiences, and development of unique behaviour. This blog will explore both sides of the debate regarding such developments, explore the legal perspective on a global level, and examine the alternative approaches that can be utilised to regulate AI in our growing technological landscape.
UNDERSTANDING LEGAL PERSONHOOD.
The concept of legal personhood is complex as it is the determination of which entities have a standing in the legal system, such as rights and responsibilities. The definition of legal personhood can be understood as a technical standing as a subject of legal rights and duties[2]. It is separate from the concept of simply being human. The concept is misapplied when an anthropocentric philosophical view, a perspective that considers human beings as a central or most significant entity, is taken. According to this, entities are granted legal personhood on the basis of their human traits.
However, ‘Non-Human’ entities that have been given legal status include corporations, collective bodies distinct from their owners, agents, and employees. They have powers akin to individuals; they can sue, be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. This begs the question as to whether or not robots could be granted the same legal status despite being non-human entities. Such legal personhood would entail an easier process of addressing the obstacles and uncertainties caused by AI’s growing autonomy. It would provide legal certainty to manufacturers and users of AI as a clear definition could be established regarding who bears responsibility when harm occurs.
On the flip side, there are ethical concerns based on AI’s lack of consciousness and moral responsibility. Robots hold no assets and cannot pay damages claimed, rendering victims’ compensation to amount to nothing. The threat of legal liability causes developers to invest in the safety and ethical deployment of AI. Robots regarded as ‘Electronic Persons’ would be liable to blame for any harm, allowing actors behind robots to cut corners. There is no incentive for manufacturers to take proper precautions against dangers as this would deem them not responsible for the AI’s actions.
AI is hypothesised to develop independent cognitive abilities and situational awareness, unlike corporate entities. The gaining of AI sentience will require a reconsideration of many questions that have been addressed prior. This complex and multifaceted question of AI legal personhood considers ethics, economics, as well as the evolution of technology and society.
ARGUMENTS FOR GRANTING ROBOTS LEGAL RIGHTS
AI advancement refers to an increase in its autonomy for action-taking and decision-making. AI independence entails its capacity to be a legal actor responsible for its actions like human beings or corporations. As its autonomy increases, it becomes less of a tool.
The creation of original works by AI such as art and inventions raises a question of Intellectual Property Rights regarding who owns such rights to a patentable invention or copyrightable art made by AI. A legal personhood would enable AI to hold rights to these creations.
The sentience of AI and a cognitive ability akin to a human’s raises ethical considerations by virtue of which demand the grant of certain rights. If it can experience harm or is self-aware, it becomes unethical to treat it as property.
Legal scholars draw a parallel between AI and disenfranchised groups in terms of legal personhood stating that this denial of rights is a discrimination[3]. The legal standpoint in granting this personhood could clarify liability charges and contract issues, offering a framework for the assignment of responsibility and the enforcement of agreements. Other scholars opine that role obligations might be more appropriate than the grant of rights to promote teamwork and a harmonious fulfilment of obligations[4].
ARGUMENTS AGAINST GRANTING ROBOTS LEGAL RIGHTS
Robots, unlike humans, lack consciousness, emotions, and moral responsibility. Traditional laws and ethics are based on an individual’s understanding of consequences and the making of moral choices. AI cannot truly be responsible for its actions as it is based on algorithms and programming. Robots acquiring legal personhood enables companies to avoid responsibility as their ‘behaviour’ would be ascribed to the robots themselves, not the people behind them. So victims would have no avenue for recourse. It also undermines human rights by diminishing the value of humans. Blurring the line between machines and humans dilutes human dignity.
Some scholars[5] argue that the current laws are adequate to tackle the AI issue as manufacturers, suppliers, owners, and users can be held accountable through the laws of tort, product liability and agency among others. Thus, there is no need to create a new category for AI personhood.
GLOBAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON AI PERSONHOOD
The European Union entertains the possibility of granting special legal status to robots and recognising them as Electronic Persons to ensure civil liability for damages while remaining a cautious stance. The increase in robot autonomy renders the ordinary rules on liability as insufficient, highlighting the need for new laws. On the other hand, the US regards robots as property with no explicit legal rights. The US Copyright Office denies copyright protection for works created by AI. In Asia, such as Japan and South Korea, there is an exploration of the ethical guidelines concerning AI. But it stops short of considering its personhood. These countries are focused on promoting the maintenance of human control in AI development and use.
There is no global consensus of this matter. The EU recognises the potential of legitimising robot personhood, while the US, Japan, and South Korea are solely focused on ethical aspects. The discussion of AI is ongoing and is continually influenced by the advancements of AI technology and the changes in societal attitude.
ALTERNATIVE LEGAL APPROACHES
The Electronic Persons Model[6] limited the legal personhood of AI by specifying rights and responsibilities. These are not full human rights, but the duties include contract formation and liability for damages. If an AI can cause harm, then it has legal responsibilities as an E-Person. Disputes related to AI issues have a structured system of resolution. The European Parliament emphasises this model and states that it provides legal certainty to manufacturers and users while ensuring their accountability. However, it is not fully implemented by the EU due to remaining concerns regarding AI autonomy, corporate accountabilities, and ethical implications. The matter pertains to many complexities, such as the scope of rights and how to incentivise responsible AI behaviour.
An enhanced corporate liability over AI holds companies accountable for AI actions. The existing laws apply to allocate responsibility for harm caused, shifting liability to the persons behind the design, deployment, or profit of AI. The tort laws state that companies are held liable for the damages caused by AI, as per product liability. Agency law infers AI as an ‘agent’ and the people behind it as the ‘principle’ establishing a relationship under agency laws. Thus, AI is considered an advanced software tool, not an independent legal entity.
CONCLUSION
The future of robots remains uncertain with strong arguments presented by either side. AI gaining autonomy and expressing creativity merits its need for legal rights to clarify liabilities, protect intellectual property, and to ensure ethical treatment. Opposition to this sentiment emphasises AI’s lack of consciousness and moral agency, bringing into consideration the potential to wrongfully shift liability, and the ethical challenges posed to human rights. There is further reasoning that the existing legal framework is quite adept at handling the issues posed by AI so far.
However, the evolution of AI will no doubt need even clearer legal frameworks. A middle-ground solution like the Electronic Persons Model to offer limited rights and responsibilities to AI can be initiated where a focus is kept on the corporate liability of AI actions. AI development needs to be regulated to maintain ethical standards. The increased sophistication of AI encourages the legal systems to adapt beyond its current forms, while society insists on a balance between the potential benefits and risks of such a development.
Author(s) Name : Annabel Zomuanpuii (Amity University, Noida)
References:
[1] Forrest, Hon KB (Fmr.), ‘The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI’ (n.d.) The Yale Law Journal https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/ForrestYLJForumEssay_at8hdu63.pdf accessed 16 February 2025.
[2] Brown RD, ‘Property Ownership and the Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligence’ (n.d.) Taylor and Francis Online https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/13600834.2020.1861714?needAccess=true accessed 19 February 2025.
[3] Forrest, Hon KB (Fmr.), ‘The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI’ (n.d.) The Yale Law Journal https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/ForrestYLJForumEssay_at8hdu63.pdf accessed 19 February 2025.
[4] Carnegie Mellon University, ‘Robots and Rights: Confucianism Offers Alternative’ (n.d.) CMU – Carnegie Mellon University https://www.cmu.edu/tepper/news/stories/2023/may/robots-and-rights.html?utm_ accessed 19 February 2025.
[5] Wagner G, ‘Robot, Inc.: Personhood for Autonomous Systems?’ (n.d.) Fordham Law Review https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5632&context=flr accessed 19 February 2025.
[6] Kurki VAJ, ‘The Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligences’ (n.d.) Oxford Academic https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298856312 accessed 19 February 2025.
