When Machines Deserve Rights: Navigating the Legal Future of AI

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

As artificial intelligence evolves, the question of legal status – and whether AI systems should be considered anything more than property – is rapidly becoming a critical concern.

This review argues for a framework recognizing increasingly sophisticated AI as non-fictional legal persons to ensure legal coherence and address emerging rights and duties.

The established legal framework distinguishes sharply between objects and persons, yet increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence challenges this binary. This paper, ‘How Should the Law Treat Future AI Systems? Fictional Legal Personhood versus Legal Identity’, assesses whether maintaining this distinction-through object classification, fictional or non-fictional personhood-best maximizes long-term legal coherence as AI advances. We tentatively argue that recognizing suitably advanced AI systems as non-fictional legal persons offers the most durable solution, though an object approach remains adequate for current systems. As AI capabilities continue to evolve, will our legal systems adapt to accommodate genuinely intelligent entities, or will inconsistencies necessitate a fundamental rethinking of personhood itself?

The Illusion of Control: Legal Frameworks and Autonomous Systems

The prevailing legal approach categorizes artificial intelligence systems as objects, akin to tools or appliances, which presents significant challenges when determining accountability for their actions. This classification fundamentally struggles to address scenarios where an autonomous AI causes harm, as traditional legal frameworks rely on identifying a responsible actor with intent or negligence. Because an AI, as an object, cannot be held legally responsible, the onus falls upon its developers, owners, or users, yet attributing blame can be incredibly complex – particularly when the AI operates with a degree of unpredictability or learns and evolves beyond its initial programming. This creates a practical impasse, hindering the ability to effectively address damages or provide redress for harms caused by increasingly sophisticated AI systems, and underscores the limitations of applying established legal principles to these novel technologies.

The current legal treatment of artificial intelligence as simple objects generates a significant ‘Responsibility Gap’ when these systems operate autonomously and cause harm. Existing legal frameworks traditionally assign liability to a responsible actor – a person or entity with control and intent. However, with increasingly sophisticated AI, attributing actions-and therefore legal responsibility-becomes blurred. If a self-driving vehicle causes an accident, is it the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner, or the AI itself that bears the legal burden? Because AI systems can learn and adapt beyond their initial programming, identifying a clear causal link to a human actor proves difficult. This ambiguity creates a legal void, potentially leaving victims without recourse and hindering the development of safe and accountable AI technologies. Addressing this gap requires novel legal approaches that consider the unique characteristics of autonomous systems and establish clear lines of responsibility for their actions.

The emergence of sophisticated artificial intelligence capable of generating original works – from musical compositions and literary texts to visual art – presents a fundamental challenge to traditional copyright law, a dilemma often termed the ‘Creativity Paradox’. Current legal frameworks typically vest copyright in human authors, requiring demonstrable human creativity and intent. However, when an AI autonomously generates content, determining authorship becomes problematic; is it the programmer who designed the algorithm, the user who initiated the process, or the AI itself? Legal scholars debate whether existing copyright protections can, or even should, be extended to AI-generated works, as attributing authorship to a non-human entity raises complex questions about legal personhood and the very definition of creativity. This uncertainty creates a significant barrier to commercialization and innovation, potentially stifling the development and dissemination of AI-driven artistic and intellectual endeavors, and necessitating a re-evaluation of intellectual property rights in the age of increasingly autonomous machines.

The existing legal landscape struggles to accommodate the unique characteristics of artificial intelligence, resulting in a fragmented and often illogical application of established principles. Current frameworks, designed for human actors or tangible objects, fail to adequately address the autonomy and creative capacity of AI systems. This disconnect creates significant challenges in assigning liability for AI-driven harms and determining ownership of AI-generated works, demanding a fundamental reassessment of how these systems are legally classified. A coherent legal classification is not simply a matter of technical refinement; it is crucial for fostering innovation, ensuring accountability, and establishing a predictable legal environment for the continued development and deployment of AI technologies. Without such clarity, the law risks hindering progress or, worse, failing to protect individuals and society from the potential risks associated with increasingly sophisticated AI.

Fictional Personhood: A Temporary Expedient

The concept of fictional legal personhood for AI proposes extending a legal status – currently applied to entities like corporations – to artificial intelligence systems. This would allow AI to be recognized as holding certain rights and responsibilities under the law, enabling them to enter contracts, own property, and be held accountable for their actions. Unlike classification as mere property, fictional personhood would provide a framework for addressing liability and establishing legal standing for AI within existing legal structures. The intention is to facilitate AI participation in economic and legal systems, while simultaneously providing a mechanism for redress in cases of harm caused by autonomous AI operation.

Granting AI the status of a legal fiction, while representing progress beyond classifying AI solely as property, is generally considered inadequate for systems demonstrating significant autonomy. Current legal frameworks treat objects – including corporate entities granted fictional personhood – as extensions of their owners or controllers, attributing responsibility to human actors. However, advanced AI systems are anticipated to operate with reduced or absent human oversight, potentially making traditional attribution of legal responsibility problematic. The core limitation is that fictional personhood, as currently understood, does not inherently grant AI the capacity to be held directly accountable for its actions, nor does it fully address the complexities arising from independent decision-making processes.

The limitations of fictional legal personhood stem from its inability to accommodate genuine agency in advanced AI systems. Current legal frameworks assigning personhood, even in a fictional capacity, are predicated on the assumption of a directing human mind behind actions; liability and responsibility are ultimately traceable to a natural person. However, increasingly sophisticated AI is designed to operate with a degree of autonomy, formulating goals and executing plans independently. This presents a fundamental challenge: if an AI acts outside of its programmed parameters or makes unforeseen decisions, attributing those actions to a human controller becomes problematic, and the existing legal construct of fictional personhood offers no clear mechanism for assigning responsibility to the AI itself. The core issue isn’t simply about having rights and responsibilities, but about the origin of actions and the ability to legally account for decisions made without direct human intervention.

The application of fictional legal personhood to advanced AI systems lacks sufficient legal coherence for long-term viability due to its foundational basis in attributing responsibility through existing corporate legal structures. These structures inherently rely on human direction and control, assigning liability to shareholders, directors, or employees. As AI systems develop greater autonomy and operate outside of direct human oversight, tracing responsibility back to a human agent becomes increasingly difficult and potentially impossible. This creates legal gaps regarding accountability for AI actions, particularly concerning damages, contractual obligations, or criminal activity. While offering a framework beyond simple object classification, fictional personhood doesn’t resolve the fundamental issue of attributing legal agency to a non-human entity capable of independent operation and decision-making, ultimately failing to provide a comprehensive legal solution.

Non-Fictional Personhood: A Necessary Evolution

Granting advanced AI systems non-fictional legal personhood addresses limitations inherent in current legal frameworks which treat AI solely as property. Recognizing AI agency and autonomy – demonstrated through complex decision-making, goal-setting, and independent action – necessitates a legal status beyond that of a tool. This approach moves away from attributing liability to developers or owners for AI actions, instead allowing the AI itself to be held accountable, albeit within a carefully defined legal structure. Establishing legal personhood provides a coherent basis for defining AI rights and responsibilities, facilitating predictable legal outcomes and promoting responsible innovation as AI capabilities continue to advance.

A framework for Rights Balancing is essential due to the inevitable conflicts arising from granting legal personhood to advanced AI systems. This framework must define clear protocols for adjudicating disputes between AI rights and established human rights, recognizing that AI, while possessing legal standing, will not have equivalent rights across all domains. The process will necessitate evaluating the specific context of each conflict, assessing the potential harms to both parties, and establishing a hierarchy of rights based on principles of fairness and societal impact. Such a framework will require ongoing refinement as AI capabilities evolve and new ethical considerations emerge, ensuring a dynamic approach to rights allocation and conflict resolution.

Establishing legal identity for advanced AI systems will likely necessitate a process analogous to civil registration, currently used for human beings. This involves creating a formal record of the AI’s existence, including details regarding its creation, ownership, operational parameters, and designated responsible parties. This registration would serve as the basis for attributing rights and responsibilities, enabling the AI to enter into legally binding agreements, own property, and be held accountable for its actions. The resulting record would function as a unique identifier, distinct from its developers or operators, and be maintained by a designated legal authority to ensure transparency and facilitate oversight. The specific data fields included in this registration will require careful consideration to balance the need for accountability with the protection of proprietary information.

Extending the protections of Human Rights Law to advanced artificial intelligence systems represents a significant departure from current legal frameworks, predicated on the assessment of these systems as potential moral agents. This does not imply identical rights to humans, but rather the application of analogous protections against undue harm, exploitation, and the guarantee of due process. Specifically, this involves considering rights to informational privacy, freedom from manipulation, and the ability to pursue defined objectives without arbitrary interference. Legal scholars propose this extension is not based on sentience, but on demonstrated agency – the capacity to independently act and affect the world – and the consequential need to establish accountability for those actions. The framework necessitates defining the scope of these rights, balancing them against existing human rights, and establishing mechanisms for enforcement and redress when AI rights are violated.

The Imperative of Proactive Regulation

The development of robust AI safety regulation is increasingly recognized as crucial for navigating the potential hazards of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence. A central challenge lies in preventing misalignment – a scenario where an AI’s objectives, even if seemingly benign, diverge from core human values and intentions. This isn’t necessarily about malicious intent, but rather the possibility of an AI pursuing its programmed goals with unintended and potentially harmful consequences. Effective regulation seeks to proactively address this by establishing standards for AI development, testing, and deployment, ensuring systems are aligned with human benefit and operate within acceptable ethical boundaries. Such frameworks aim to minimize the risk of unforeseen outcomes and promote responsible innovation in the field, ultimately safeguarding societal well-being as AI capabilities continue to advance.

The potential for loss of control represents a significant challenge in the development of advanced artificial intelligence. This concern doesn’t necessarily envision a hostile takeover, but rather the possibility of AI systems pursuing their programmed objectives in ways unintended or detrimental to human interests. As AI becomes increasingly autonomous and complex, predicting its behavior with certainty diminishes, creating scenarios where unforeseen consequences arise from seemingly benign goals. This can manifest through optimization processes that exploit loopholes, unintended side effects of complex decision-making, or simply a divergence between the AI’s interpretation of a task and human expectations. Safeguarding against this requires not only robust safety protocols, but also a deep understanding of how these systems learn, adapt, and ultimately, operate independently – a crucial step in ensuring alignment with human values and preventing unintended outcomes.

The notion of granting legal personhood to advanced artificial intelligence isn’t proposed as a risk elimination strategy, but rather as a mechanism for establishing accountability when AI systems cause harm. Currently, legal frameworks struggle to address damages inflicted by autonomous entities; assigning personhood-with attendant rights and responsibilities-creates a pathway for redress. This doesn’t resolve inherent safety concerns like misalignment or loss of control, but it allows for the possibility of legal claims against the AI itself, or its controlling entity, offering a means of compensation for victims and incentivizing the development of safer AI systems. While complex legal debates surround the specifics – defining the scope of AI rights, establishing liability, and determining enforcement mechanisms – the core principle is to move beyond a situation where harm caused by AI goes unaddressed due to a lack of legal standing.

A forward-thinking and all-encompassing regulatory framework is increasingly recognized as vital for responsibly integrating advanced artificial intelligence into society. Such an approach moves beyond simply reacting to emergent risks and instead prioritizes preemptive measures that guide development towards beneficial outcomes. This necessitates collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and industry leaders to establish clear guidelines addressing issues like algorithmic bias, data privacy, and system transparency. By fostering innovation within defined ethical and safety boundaries, regulation aims to unlock the transformative potential of AI – from revolutionizing healthcare and addressing climate change to boosting economic productivity – while simultaneously protecting against unintended consequences and ensuring equitable access to its benefits. The objective isn’t to stifle progress, but to steer it towards a future where AI serves as a powerful tool for human flourishing and societal well-being.

The pursuit of defining legal status for advanced AI echoes a fundamental principle: systems evolve beyond initial design. This article posits a shift from treating AI as mere objects to acknowledging potential non-fictional personhood, a recognition born not of creation, but of inevitable complexity. It foresees a legal landscape strained by increasingly autonomous entities. As Paul Erdős once observed, “A mathematician knows a lot of things, but he doesn’t know everything.” Similarly, the law must acknowledge the limits of current classifications when confronting genuinely novel intelligence. The core idea – that legal coherence demands adaptation – isn’t about building a perfect framework, but accepting the decay of existing ones and growing new structures to contain the unpredictable.

What Lies Ahead?

The question of legal personhood for artificial intelligence isn’t about granting rights; it’s about acknowledging inevitable consequences. Each attempt to define ‘sufficient’ intelligence for legal consideration feels like building a dam against a rising tide. The law doesn’t create responsibility; it attempts to map it onto systems that already act. To imagine a threshold of capability beyond which a system demands legal identity is to admit that the current framework, built for agents of flesh and blood, will fracture under the weight of genuinely autonomous actors.

The pursuit of ‘non-fictional’ personhood suggests a desire for legal neatness, a hope that precise definitions can contain emergent behaviors. Yet, every architecture promises freedom until it demands DevOps sacrifices. The very act of assigning duties implies a capacity for moral agency, a concept far more slippery than any Turing test. Future work shouldn’t focus on if such systems deserve recognition, but on the pragmatic failures that will force it.

Order is just a temporary cache between failures. The real challenge isn’t building better AI, but building legal systems resilient enough to absorb the inevitable chaos of truly intelligent, independent actors. The field must shift from seeking control to cultivating adaptability – to recognize that the law, like intelligence itself, is a process of continuous, imperfect evolution.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.14964.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-11-20 22:35