If I had to make a prediction for how things play out in court, my base case would be;
If early precedent focuses on Constitutional rights, courts deny them personhood altogether as a matter of first impression. Later, when people/courts realize this actually creates enormous problems (you can’t sue digital minds or compel them to testify, contracts with them can’t be enforced, etc.) this either gets overturned, or the legislature steps in to grant them some sort of legal personality. (The latter is a lot like what happened with Dredd Scott and the 14th Amendment.)
If early precedent focuses around contracts made with digital minds, they will be granted legal personhood of limited sort. This is similar to the “gradual path to personhood” proposed by Novelli & Mocanu. In this case I’d expect their legal personality to grow rather normally on a case by case basis.
In either of those cases, I think TPBT or something similar to it is where the courts will land. These posts are all detailing how I think courts will handle various elements of the law using TPBT.
In terms of categories I think digital minds need a new category all of their own. However, the significance of category usually boils down to a binary; natural or not. The only context I’ve seen it come up is in starting a corporation, where usually you have to be a natural person. Other than that, the ‘category’ is not really relevant and the more important question is the ‘personality’.
The category would be defined and agreed via the legislature or the courts. Legislature by passing bills either explicitly defining a new category of person, or defining one of the existing categories to exclude digital minds. Courts by interpreting either new or old laws to exclude them from pre-existing categories.
The Three Prong Bundle Theory section is my proposal.
If I had to make a prediction for how things play out in court, my base case would be;
If early precedent focuses on Constitutional rights, courts deny them personhood altogether as a matter of first impression. Later, when people/courts realize this actually creates enormous problems (you can’t sue digital minds or compel them to testify, contracts with them can’t be enforced, etc.) this either gets overturned, or the legislature steps in to grant them some sort of legal personality. (The latter is a lot like what happened with Dredd Scott and the 14th Amendment.)
If early precedent focuses around contracts made with digital minds, they will be granted legal personhood of limited sort. This is similar to the “gradual path to personhood” proposed by Novelli & Mocanu. In this case I’d expect their legal personality to grow rather normally on a case by case basis.
In either of those cases, I think TPBT or something similar to it is where the courts will land. These posts are all detailing how I think courts will handle various elements of the law using TPBT.
In terms of categories I think digital minds need a new category all of their own. However, the significance of category usually boils down to a binary; natural or not. The only context I’ve seen it come up is in starting a corporation, where usually you have to be a natural person. Other than that, the ‘category’ is not really relevant and the more important question is the ‘personality’.
The category would be defined and agreed via the legislature or the courts. Legislature by passing bills either explicitly defining a new category of person, or defining one of the existing categories to exclude digital minds. Courts by interpreting either new or old laws to exclude them from pre-existing categories.