As AI systems become more autonomous and integrated into society, managing financial transactions, making healthcare decisions, or even generating creative works, some scholars argue that we may need to consider a form of limited legal personality for these systems, similar to corporate personhood. This raises fundamental questions about accountability, liability, and the limits of legal subjectivity. What would be the risks and benefits of granting AI systems a legal status, and in which contexts (e.g., contracts, torts, IP) could this be justified or problematic?
Hello Ahmed Raza
There are risks and benefits of granting AI legal status akin to corporate personhood. For one, this clarification might ensure accountability while fostering innovation in recognition of AI involved in contracts, intellectual property, and liability. On the other hand, by granting AI legal status, there arises the risk of blurred accountability whereby developers or companies might sidestep responsibility for harmful acts of AI. This can further aggravate exploitation of legal loopholes by fostering large corporate monopolization. In some instances, AI may be justified to be granted legal status such as autonomous transactions, torts (sub injury by AI), and for AI-generated works. However, cases in the opposite setting leave potent concerns such as the one in healthcare that requires due oversight. The challenge, therefore, lies within the balance between granting AI a clear legal status with necessary attributes that might be misused and ensuring that there is an accountable human involved.
The topic is very complex and requires in-depth study between the legal and technical fields.