The AI Personhood Conundrum: Analyzing Liabilities, Rights, and the Impossibility of 'Electronic Personhood'

 

I. The History and Definition of Legal Personhood

1. Historical Analogies and AI Application

The most common historical analogy for non-human personhood is the Corporation. Corporations are allowed to assume separate legal liabilities independent of their founders or owners. Maritime law also sometimes assigns liability in rem (against the thing itself) to Ships.

2. Priority of Legal Personhood

When applying legal personhood to AI, most legal scholars argue that Liabilities/Obligations must be granted priority over Rights. This priority stems from the need to prioritize victim compensation and risk allocation in cases of AI-induced harm. Furthermore, granting rights seems premature, as the logical process leading to AI conclusions lacks proven stability, and even entities like pets, dogs, and cats, which are closer to humans, have not been granted legal personhood.

II. Autonomy, Ownership, and Property Rights

1. Ownership of AI Creations

In the United States, the US Copyright Office has repeatedly rejected copyright registration for creations made solely by an AI, firmly maintaining that 'Human Authorship' is essential for copyright protection. This stance is considered sound, given the current state where AI functions as a helper or executor of human creative intent. Thus, AI cannot currently own the copyright to its creations.

2. AI's Capacity to Own Property

Even if AI could autonomously transact and manage funds, the current legal framework dictates that only a Natural Person or a Juristic Person (Corporation) can hold Title to assets like real estate or bank accounts. Since both natural and juristic persons are ultimately driven by human will, granting independent ownership to AI conflicts with the established legal system. Consequently, AI cannot own property in its own name.

III. Counterarguments and the Alternative Liability Model

1. The Dominant Opposition

The prevailing argument against granting AI legal personhood is that AI lacks 'Moral Capacity,' 'Intent (Mens Rea),' and the human capacity to 'Feel Suffering (Sentience).' This viewpoint suggests that conferring personhood constitutes an abuse of legal principles. This argument is valid; even species deemed intellectually similar to humans, such as dolphins and great apes, are not granted personhood. Granting it to AI, whose underlying logical structure lacks stability, could introduce unpredictable risks.

2. The Strict Liability Alternative

The most viable alternative liability model is Strict Liability. This approach holds the party benefiting economically from the AI—the developer, owner, or operator—liable for damages regardless of fault (무과실). This simplifies victim compensation. This approach is reasonable because humans are ultimately responsible for controlling the potential risks posed by AI, and applying strict liability is less problematic if the responsibility is limited primarily to financial compensation.

IV. Global Trends: South Korea and the European Union

1. The EU's 'Electronic Personhood' Debate

The European Parliament proposed a resolution in 2017 for conferring 'Electronic Personhood' upon highly autonomous robots, intended primarily for managing liability and insurance. However, this proposal was not codified due to issues of complexity and practical effectiveness. The EU has since shifted focus to regulating AI liability by strengthening existing Product Liability and Service Responsibility laws. While the initial "Electronic Personhood" proposal was meaningful, limited recognition might be considered in a future where AI technology is fully established and stable.

2. South Korea's Conservative Stance

Discussions exist in Korean legal circles, but the prevailing direction is to regulate AI liability through 'Product Liability Law' or 'Operator Responsibility,' rather than immediately granting legal personhood. This stance is realistic, given the current operational patterns and technological level of AI, where granting personhood is considered premature.

V. Conclusion: AI as a Helper, Not a Legal Subject

Based on the comprehensive analysis of legal history, technical status, and global policy trends, granting legal personhood to AI is definitively premature for the following reasons:

  1. Current Function: AI primarily serves as a helper or command executor for humans.
  2. Technical Immaturity: AI technology is currently not fully stable, transparent, or comprehensible, making the assignment of full legal status inappropriate.
  3. Societal Conservatism: Humanity has historically reacted conservatively to granting even limited legal status to non-human entities, even emotionally proximate ones like companion animals.

Therefore, the most viable and prudent approach is to maintain AI's current status as a human helper and focus on establishing robust human accountability models (like Strict Liability) rather than conferring rights.


Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. The content reflects the author's analysis and opinion based on publicly available information as of the date of publication. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel specific to their situation. We explicitly disclaim any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the contents of this article.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Algorithm: The Legal Implications of AI 'Black Boxes,' Explainability, and Due Process in the US

  I. Defining the Black Box Problem and the Legal Collision 1. The Conflict with Due Process and Anti-Discrimination Law The Black Box problem is defined as the state where complex AI systems (primarily deep learning models) reach conclusions through processes (weights and correlations) that are not intuitively understandable or explainable by humans. This opacity creates a conflict: Due Process: When AI is used to make decisions significantly impacting individual lives (e.g., sentencing, loan denial, benefit revocation), the lack of transparency infringes upon the right to know the basis of the decision . However , the claim that decision-making justification should be fully transparent is arguable, considering the opaque processes of human brain function during human judgment. Anti-Discrimination Law: The black-box model makes it difficult to externally audit whether the system utilizes protected variables (such as race or g...
Read more

Beyond Fair Use: The Rise of AI-Specific Licensing Models and the Threat of Data Oligopoly

  I. The Nature of Data Contracts: Future-Proofing the Data Pipeline 1. Contractual Intent: Access Over Compensation These high-profile deals between major media entities (such as The New York Times and The Associated Press) and AI developers (like OpenAI) are fundamentally structured not as mere compensation for past data usage , but as the sale of exclusive, forward-looking data access rights for model refinement and future development. Given the relatively modest fees compared to the true economic value generated by the AI models, it is difficult to view these payments as full restitution for historical training infringement. 2. Valuation as Investment The financial value exchanged in these agreements is better categorized as investment capital aimed at future model advancement . By securing exclusive access to high-quality, verified content, the AI developer is essentially future-proofing their data pipeline against competitors and further litigation, guaranteeing the...
Read more