Endowing Artificial Intelligence with legal subjectivity

Abstract

This paper reflects on the problem of endowing Artificial Intelligence (AI) with legal subjectivity, especially with regard to civil law. It is necessary to reject the myth that the criteria of legal subjectivity are sentience and reason. Arguing that AI may have potential legal subjectivity based on an analogy to animals or juristic persons suggests the existence of a single hierarchy or sequence of entities, organized according to their degree of similarity to human beings; also, that the place of an entity in this hierarchy determines the scope of subjectivity attributed to it. Rather, it is participation or presence in social life, whatever the role, that is the true criterion of subjectivity. In addition, it is clear that even if AI is not currently a significant participant in social life, it will be in the nearest future. Despite the potential dangers associated with endowing AI with some kind of subjectivity, such a course is inescapable, and should be considered sooner rather than later.

The Issue of the Subjectivity of Artificial Intelligence Acting for an Employer

“…The process of changing the law does not have to be very fast, but should accompany technological and social change. But legal science should work on proposals as soon as possible, and not fall into ideological boost or simply guarding tradition (Wojtczak 2021).…”

Gradient Legal Personhood for AI Systems—Painting Continental Legal Shapes Made to Fit Analytical Molds

“…Arguing that AI systems may have potential legal subjectivity based on an analogy to animals, however, or even juristic persons for that matter, superficially suggests “the existence of a single hierarchy or sequence of entities, organized according to their degree of similarity to human beings” ( Wojtczak, 2021 ). The place of an entity in this hierarchy would determine the scope of subjectivity attributed to it, a subjectivity that would be “derivative” in nature and not different from that of animals and companies.…”

“…Regardless of whether we choose to think of personhood as a bundle or as gradient, the important premise remains that legal personhood is a complex attribute in legal theory, having been expressly characterized as “gradable” aside from it also being “discrete, discontinuous, multifaceted, and fluid” ( Wojtczak, 2021 ). This because it can contain a variable number elements of different types—such as responsibilities, rights, competences, and so on—which can be added or taken away by a lawmaker in most cases with some notable exceptions, chiefly concerning the natural personhood of humans, who cannot be deprived of their human rights, and neither can they renounce certain subjective rights.…”

Granting legal personhood to artificial intelligence systems and traditional veil-piercing concepts to impose liability

“…There are academics who have rejected the argument that the criteria for legal personhood should be premised on sentience and reason (Wojtczak 2021). Instead they argue that it is the participation of presence in social life that should be the true criterion (Wojtczak 2021).…”

“…There are academics who have rejected the argument that the criteria for legal personhood should be premised on sentience and reason (Wojtczak 2021). Instead they argue that it is the participation of presence in social life that should be the true criterion (Wojtczak 2021). With developments in artificial intelligence technology progressing at a rapid pace, it is quite likely that the legal debate on conferring them some form of legal personality with its corresponding rights and obligations would be unavoidable.…”