Note I’m not actually arguing for making AIs a legal person, but the current list of legal persons includes companies, unions, municipalities, ships, rivers and deities.
In fact AIs have one of the most important characteristics often required to make something a legal person—namely they can (and already do) consider the law when deciding whether to do something.
However they lack a suitable definition of long term selfhood, and likely cannot be meaningfully punished, which is the main argument against treating them as legal persons.
We have specisl tules for machines that csn cause harms too. That’s why you need to insure your car. Mandatory insurance for AI companies would also be an option.
But an AI isn’t an animal, it is a machine, and we do not apply strict liability to machines that malfunction.
An AI has far more in common with a person than a machine given the range of outcomes that can result from a short input by the user.
You do not ask a tractor to plant some seeds and then have it break into the neighbours tool shed and steal some seeds.
An AI has far more in common with a person than a machine? Now you really sound like you have gone off the deep end.
Note I’m not actually arguing for making AIs a legal person, but the current list of legal persons includes companies, unions, municipalities, ships, rivers and deities.
In fact AIs have one of the most important characteristics often required to make something a legal person—namely they can (and already do) consider the law when deciding whether to do something.
However they lack a suitable definition of long term selfhood, and likely cannot be meaningfully punished, which is the main argument against treating them as legal persons.
We have specisl tules for machines that csn cause harms too. That’s why you need to insure your car. Mandatory insurance for AI companies would also be an option.