Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................3

Arguments of both the Authors with regards to Favour of Granting

Legal Personhood to artificial intelligence...........................................4

The Arguments of both the Authors with regards to Limitations of

Granting the Legal Personhood to Artificial Intelligence....................6

Result Outcome: Conclusion................................................................7

1
Introduction
Legal personality implies that an entity will be deemed under the statute comprising of
entities such as corporations, religious idols, foreign bodies, etc. Unfortunately, though the
existing legal framework is not convincingly clearing up the issue of treating an entity as a
legal personality. It would be imperative to mention that the contemporary jurisprudence is
not well suited to cope critically and systematically with this issue. There is also an urgent
need for a timely re-assessment of the definition of legal personality. The stimulus behind
this necessity is the advent of artificial intelligence technologies. The mere evolution of
revolutionary technology does not entail a shift in the rules of law, but where there is an
improvement in the interaction of this technology with humanity, or when this technology
becomes a central part of the human environment, new problems will emerge. This will
happen because most of the researchers failed to recognize this fact that with the passage of
time, there is a need to give legal personhood to AI and other non-biological entities.
Although such issues play an overwhelming role in putting forth such debates and these
powerful claims have become tedious, considering they rely exclusively on the shortcomings
and advantages of the legal rights of artificial intelligence, without providing any
contemplation to the profound need to safeguard human-based intelligence systems. 1 This has
been witnessed in the renowned research papers named “Legal Personhood for Artificial
Intelligence: Citizenship as the Exception to the Rule” and “Artificial Intelligence and
the Limits of Legal Personality” authored by “Tyler L. Jaynes” and “Simon
Chestermon”, respectively, where both the authors mentioned about the issue which the
world is witnessing while conferring the legal personhood to AI and robots.

The author of the first paper, i.e., “Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence:
Citizenship as the Exception to the Rule” states certain issues because of which the world
is still struggling to grant legal personhood which are following:

 It is difficult for human to accept that the non-biological intelligence which has been
designed to support an intellectual capability of human get the legal and moral rights
equally.
 The author also stated that elicits a variety of images for from both our current
technological capabilities and science fiction in the average individuals mind and how
it seems that the humanity views artificial intelligence today.

1
Pallavi Gupta, Artificial Intelligence: Legal Challenges in India, 3 JEMTEC 138-139, 133-141 (2019)

2
  It would be imperative to mention that the author also acknowledged one important
issue with regards to the implications of granting of legal rights which would arise
after providing the status of legal personhood to AI and robots.
 The author also stated the problem that investors who invested in the research of NBI
structure and wished to see their investment cannot expect any economic return
considering government has been suggested to provide legal personhood to AI and
robots.2

On the other hand, the author of second paper, i.e., “Artificial Intelligence and the Limits
of Legal Personality” explicitly mention about one issue that who can be the subject of
rights and duties after the AI and robotics get the legal personhood considering it can be the
harbinger of every other issue. Another issue which the author All the aforementioned
questions and challenges can be considered as the hinderance in the legal personhood of AI
and other non-biological intelligence.3

Arguments of both the Authors with regards to Favour of Granting Legal

Personhood to artificial intelligence
There is no doubt to the fact that the primary purpose of the law is to further the welfare and
interest of the humans. Human beings are the sole beneficiaries of law, but it would be wrong
to say that they are the only ones who must be its only subjects. Artificial intelligence entities
must be treated as legal personalities so as to make them accountable under the law just like
corporations.

In second paper, the author Simon Chesterman mentioned one instance of Nevada where
the self-driving cars has been considered as traditional human drivers and the law hold them
accountable for any accident caused or any other liability arising from their acts. In this paper
the supporters showed their support by making a comparison with another juridical person,
i.e., corporation.4 For instance, in corporations if a person is found to take unfair advantage of
the legal personality of the corporation, then the courts pierce through the corporate shield
and hold such person accountable. This process of lifting of corporate veil can be adopted in
case if any person uses artificial intelligence as a means to satisfy his own selfish motives or

2
Tyler L. Jaynes, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence: Citizenship as the Exception to the Rule,
Albeyne Medical College (2019)
3
Simon Chestermon, Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality, 69 ICLQ, 819-844 (2020)
4
Shubham Singh, Attribution of Legal Personhood to Artificially Intelligent Beings, Bha. Law Rev. 198-200,
194-201 (2017)

3
to save himself from any criminal liability. 5 Some supporters also recommend to provide
legal protection to “computer generated work” which can be considered as the copyrights for
the work which can be considered as the result of creativity of machines. 6 It would be
pertinent to state that the author of the second paper mention about the citizenship granted to
humanoid robot “Sophia” by Saudi Arabia and, also, the European Parliament adopted a
resolution calling on its Commission to consider creating a specific legal status for robots in
the long run.7

On the contrary, in the other paper which was authored by Tyler L. Janes, it would come to
notice that the supporters demanded the right to self-expression for the non-biological
intelligence considering without this right it would be impossible to charge the programme
developer in case of negligence.8 According to author, NBI should have the right to own
necessary or non-biological components. It can be inferred that the robots or other NBIs can
have the right to acquire any property whether it is intellectual or non-intellectual. Not only
this, they stated that the non-biological intelligence should have all the fundamental rights
which have been given to the human beings whether it is about the right to life or right to
equality or right to seek freedom from bondage of human or rights with regards to
representation in court or legal suits.9 The most important right which the author is
demanding in the paper is the right to personhood which can be considered as the right to be
treated as person before the law considering if they once considered as the person then they
will automatically get half of the rights which has been provided to human beings.10

It can be inferred from the aforementioned contentions of the authors of both the papers that
they find it necessary to provide legal personhood to robots and other non-biological
intelligence considering the world now already witnessed such instances which makes it
necessary for other countries to provide legal recognition to robots and NBIs.

5
Huzefa Tavawalla, Can Artificial Intelligence be given Legal Rights and Duties, Mondaq.com, June 25, 2018,
www.mondaq.com/india/new-technology/712308/can-artificial-intelligence-be-given-legal-rights-and-duties
6
Pamela Samuelson, Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1192,
1185-1224 (1986)
7
Supra Note 3
8
Supra Note 2
9
Can Artificial Rights be Given Legal Rights and Duties, Nisith Desai Associates, June 17, 2018,
www.nishithdesai.com/information/research-and-articles/nda-hotline/nda-hotline-single-view/article/can-
artificial-intelligence-be-given-legal-rights-and duties.html?
no_cache=1&cHash=9f410b8a859ab7295b8a0a916a04d3fe?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=synd
10
Samir Chopra and White Laurence, Artificial Agents: Personhood in Law and Philosophy, 635–39

4
The Arguments of both the Authors with regards to Limitations of
Granting the Legal Personhood to Artificial Intelligence
It would be better if AI and other non-biological intelligence got the status of legal
personhood considering the need of artificial intelligence is increasing day by day in the
country. However, it would be pertinent to mention certain limitations which world might
face after accruing the legal personhood to AI and other NBIs. The authors of both the papers
put light on such limitations.

Simon Chesterman, the author of second paper mentioned about the most important
limitation that although the more prominent scenario is the malignant super-intelligence
focused on destruction or exploitation of the human race, the more likely are the dislocation
of values, such as the ends of the super-intelligence clash with human beings, or the need for
self-preservation that might lead such an entity to preclude humans from being willing to shut
it off or even impede it.11 The author also acknowledged the issued paper of A World
Intellectual Property Organization where it was noted that the right to identified as the
author of the work degrades the dignity of creativity of humans and encourages the creativity
of machines.12 In fact, the author also stated that if the true superintelligence got the legal
personhood then they may bring about the disaster which has been intended to prevent
considering according to him they have the ability to predict and avoid human interventions
or deceive us into not making them.13

On the other hand, Tyler L. Janes, the author of first paper put forth the arguments by
mentioning the limitation with regards to the legal personhood to AI and robots. The author
stated that although the improvement of human-based intelligence systems can contribute to
greater productivity within the corporate environment on a regular basis, those factors can at
eventually resulting in the exploitation of supremacy in the form of aspects of the market
competition the same period.14 The author also stated that granting the legal rights to AI and
other NBIs would lead to complications surrounding the necessity of attributing personhood
to NBI.15 For instance, the citizenship does not provide many useful protections for the NBI
11
Olle Häggström, Challenges to the Omohundro–Bostrom Framework for AI Motivations, 21 Foresight 153,
153-166 (2019)
12
M du Sautoy, The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI, Hav. Univ. Press, (2019)
13
Solum and L. B., Legal personhood for artificial intelligences, 70 North Carolina Law Review, 1238–1239
(1992)
14
Roman Dremulga, Criteria for Recognition of AI as a Legal Person, 12(3) Jour. of Pol. and Law 107, 105-112
(2019)
15
Ryan Abbott & Alex Sarch, ‘Punishing Artificial Intelligence: Legal Fiction or Science Fiction, 53 UC Davis
Law Review 220, 1-323 (2019)

5
system, if any are granted at all, which is a subject that has not even been adequately
addressed by the nation of Saudi Arabia. In fact, the author mentions an important limitation
that there is no feasible manner which can be considered as the adequate standards of
sentencing for NBI systems in case of any criminal charges.16

It can be inferred that the authors of both the papers provide merits as well as demerits with
regards to legal personhood to AI and robots so that the legislatures of all the countries can
consider this before granting legal personhood to any non-biological intelligence.

Result Outcome: Conclusion

It is a well-known fact that the technological world is changing rapidly which warrants the
adaptive reforms in the current legal system. So, that our legal system is capable of finding
solutions to the legal issues raised by technological developments in our society. There is
sufficient legal consideration arguing in favour of attribution of legal personality to artificial
intelligence, which in no case would be conceptually different from legal personhood of
corporations, trade unions, etc. So, it would be imperative to mention that there is a need for
the world to grant legal personhood to AIs and other NBIs. 17 With that intention the authors
of “Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence: Citizenship as the Exception to the
Rule” and “Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality” stated certain
arguments in support of legal personhood to robots and stated certain arguments in against
which would help in understanding the need for the legal status to non-biological intelligence.

It would be imperative to mention that the debate with regards to need for legal personhood is
still going on considering the most important parameter in deciding whether the AI system
should be granted legal status or not depends on the fact whether it is in the interest of the
society. There are several strong arguments from both the sides. However, the reality is that
the artificial intelligence is already an important and influential part of our world and its
importance will rise unprecedentedly. The legal system has already started facing challenges
due to AI which is yet at a developing stage, therefore, there is a strong need that we start
preparing for the upcoming technological development. Even so, people are ignorant towards
the future storm which might be disastrous if the world failed to maintain a balance between
the need of artificial intelligence and human intelligence. Thus, it is important to identify the
requirement of creativity of both the intelligence while keeping the merits and demerits of
both into consideration.
16
Supra Note 2
17
N Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, (Oxford University Press 2014)