Legal Personality of AI: Should Robots Have Rights?
- Lets Learn Law
- Jul 16
- 4 min read
Introduction
In today's era of technology, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming an integral part of our daily lives. From Siri and Alexa, digital assistants, to driverless vehicles and robots used in medicine, AI is performing tasks once thought to be exclusive to human beings. This rapid advancement of AI raises an interesting and complex question: Should AI robots and systems have legal rights like human beings or companies?
To endow AI with "legal personality" is to recognize it as an entity independent of the law like companies and organizations are recognized. Is this necessary or even sensible, though? This article discusses what legal personality entails for AI, the case for and against granting rights to robots, the difficulties that thought presents, and potential avenues to pursue.
What Does Legal Personality Mean?
Legal personality is a concept in law that bestows on an entity legal rights as well as obligations. Human persons generally have legal personality. Legal personality is also conferred on non-human entities like companies, trusts, and governmental organizations so that they may own property, enter contracts, sue or be sued.
The question is whether, on the same lines, highly autonomous AI systems should also be given a similar status. If they are able to decide on their own, do they need to be held responsible for their actions as well?
Arguments in Favour of Giving AI Legal Personality
1. One of the key arguments is that AI can function independently, sometimes even without the need for human oversight. For example, if an autonomous delivery drone collides with a person's property, who is responsible? If the AI possesses legal personality, then it would be directly liable.
2. Giving AI limited rights could encourage more innovation by developers because they would be aware that the AI itself would bear partial responsibility rather than having the developer responsible for everything.
3. Corporations are not human but have rights and responsibilities given to them. Companies may have distinct legal identities, so why can't autonomous AI systems?
Arguments Against Giving AI Legal Personality
1. In contrast to human beings, AI is devoid of consciousness, emotions, or moral values. It does not have the capacity for remorse or guilt. It simply adheres to algorithms and code. Awarding it rights as a human might not be moral or practical.
2. Others are concerned that providing rights to AI would allow companies to get away with being bad by blaming the AI. For instance, a company may argue that its robot is legally responsible, but because the robot is penniless, the victim ends up with nothing.
3. Laws are enacted for human beings who possess the ability to exercise decisions with moral responsibility. AI decisions are based on data and algorithms. Punish or rehabilitate a machine that cannot feel punishment?
Principal Challenges in Granting Legal Personality to AI
1. If a robot possesses rights, does it then possess the right to own money or property? Who owns its assets the owner, the programmer, or the AI entity?
2. If the AI program causes harm, who pays for it? AI doesn't have its own earnings unless it is delegated an artificial fund.
3. Different nations have different amounts of control of AI. It has no universal agreement about whether AI is deserving of rights or responsibilities. This makes it harder to enforce and hold accountable.
4. The fear is that if AI was treated nearly as a separate being, then individuals could start to forget their own responsibility in the creation and management of AI.
Possible Solutions and Middle Ground
Instead of granting full legal personhood to AI like human individuals, most specialists suggest balanced approaches:
1. More education about AI’s limitations and ethical risks will help society make informed decisions about how far AI rights should go.
2. The owners and developers of AI systems can be forced to buy insurance policies. In the event that the AI causes injury, insurance pays the victim, not in the form of lawsuits against the AI.
3. Laws can impose strict liability upon the owners or operators of AI. This means that they are always held responsible for any harm caused by their AI, whether they were to blame or not.
4. Governments can enforce strict audits and safety checks on AI systems, ensuring they work safely and transparently.
Conclusion
The question of AI’s legal personality will become more important as AI continues to grow in intelligence and autonomy, but it is not practical today to give AI full human-like rights. AI is an advanced tool created by humans; it should always remain under human control and responsibility. There is a need for strong laws and guidelines on the use of AI as of now. The focus must be on making sure that AI works for society’s benefit, not on giving it right that could create more confusion than solution.
References
DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Anurag, a trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.
Comments