Legal Personhood of Robots

This clearly shows that humans can be driven to focus on AI. Their scrutiny is distracted by the people who developed and deployed the AI. The fact is, in today`s world, there is no legal recourse to sue AI for your efforts to correct an injustice if you have been harmed by an AI system. If you decide to legally pursue your fair compensation for the breach by prosecuting the AI, know that you cannot force the AI to walk, crawl, or somehow enter a courtroom to face the test of justice. New York State, Supreme Court, Appeals Division, Third Judicial Division. Decided and registered: 4 December 2014 (518336), p. 14. 5: Amadio v Levin, 509 Pa 199, 225, 501 A2d 1085, 1098 [1985, Zappala, J., concordant] [emphasizing that “the legal notion of `person` does not derive from the humanity of the subject, but from the attribution of rights and duties to the subject”]. However, keep in mind that we are now pretending to give AI or robots a legal entity, and if so, the scenario I have described will change drastically. The scenario will not change, but pointing fingers will legally change in a demonstrative way.

Calo (2015) lists some consequences that can be produced by social value, among which Balkin (2015) highlights four: 1) The more anthropomorphic a robot is, the more people blame the robot than the person using it; 2) the presence of robots in a surveillance system increases the subjective feeling that someone is being monitored; 3) humans take more risks to preserve the integrity of anthropomorphic robots than to things called tools; and 4) humans can suffer significant emotional damage due to the loss of robot companions. In terms of terminology, it makes sense to distinguish a human person used as a biological term (to distinguish humans from other animals, but also to raise the question of when a cyborg ceases to be considered a human person); a legal person used as a legal term (which raises the question of whether, and if so, under what conditions, an artificial agent can be characterized as a legal person capable of acting right or wrong); and a natural or legal person used as a legal term based on positive law (raising the question of which animals or artificial agents are suitable for a legal person, emphasizing that this requires a political decision). Everyday innovations and ideas take the form of reality, which has both advantages and disadvantages. Artificial intelligence is an example of such innovations. Humans can no longer claim to be the most intelligent and rational beings on earth because their competitors have now entered the field. Competitors should address robots here. This may seem like a false claim to some, but the debate about giving bots the status of a person is ongoing and they could become people in the future. Statistics show that the number of industrial robots in factories reached the 3 million mark worldwide in 2020 and has more than doubled in the last decade. Now, a person commits many punishable crimes, so are robots punished in the same way as humans if they commit a crime? As a mental shortcut, the legal entity allows the division of inheritance into autonomous centers, different from the complex of legal relationships of each partner. The creation of the new entity (legal entity) makes it easier to understand the separation of assets based on a specific purpose.

However, this creates the illusion that property segregation depends on the legal person, as if patrimonial autonomy could only be explained through the mediation of the legal person. In addition to simplifying the complex and autonomous asset allocation relationship, the use of corporate personality also provides access to a private credit model of the shares of shareholders and managers, while giving stability to the coordination model developing within the legal entity. 2. Partial separation Partially separated and revocable AI-based legal platform What has just been said does not contradict my assertion that ordinary businesses – owned and managed by a community of people – can be legal entities separate from their owners. First, sole proprietorships are not legal persons; On the contrary, they simply provide a new legal platform to their owner. On the other hand, companies with many members are not reducible to a single owner, but an exercise in collective intentionality different from that of the participants. This collective nature establishes the autonomous legal personality of these bodies. Moreover, the Agreement cannot normally be revoked by a single member.

The AI side agreement, on the other hand, can be revoked by its sole proprietor at any time.34 For this reason, although the sub-agreement involves the use of legal entity incidents, it does not confer AI at all on a legal entity.35 First, in the context of ultimate value, we question whether AI has an ultimate value and therefore a value in obtaining some of the protection enjoyed by legal persons, such as human children. Science fiction is full of examples of scenarios in which certain characteristics of a robot (usually similar to a human) raise questions about its morally correct treatment. Basic safeguards are particularly important here, but many other incidents – perhaps all others – involving legal entities are also relevant. In Rodotà`s lesson (2015), the problem lies in the perspective of the idea of an abstract subject influencing any process of attribution to a legal entity. This construction allowed the legal discourse to formally liberate the person and artificially detach him from his economic, social and natural conditions. In response to the contempt for the concrete, we notice the attempt to reconnect the person in the material sense with his context, with the reinvention of the person, who is now socio-ecologically located and embodied. Due to the absence of an ontological and legal definition of this emerging technology, law is forced to resort to ancient figures, metaphors already known, which help us to approach the new and the unknown with some familiarity.