Gradient Legal Personhood for AI Systems—Painting Continental Legal Shapes Made to Fit Analytical Molds

What I propose in the present article are some theoretical adjustments for a more coherent answer to the legal “status question” of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. I arrive at those by using the new “bundle theory” of legal personhood, together with its accompanying conceptual and methodological apparatus as a lens through which to look at a recent such answer inspired from German civil law and named Teilrechtsfähigkeit or partial legal capacity. I argue that partial legal capacity is a possible solution to the status question only if we understand legal personhood according to this new theory. Conversely, I argue that if indeed Teilrechtsfähigkeit lends itself to being applied to AI systems, then such flexibility further confirms the bundle theory paradigm shift. I then go on to further analyze and exploit the particularities of Teilrechtsfähigkeit to inform a reflection on the appropriate conceptual shape of legal personhood and suggest a slightly different answer from the bundle theory framework in what I term a “gradient theory” of legal personhood.

Protecting Sentient Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Lay Intuitions on Standing, Personhood, and General Legal Protection

To what extent, if any, should the law protect sentient artificial intelligence (that is, AI that can feel pleasure or pain)? Here we surveyed United States adults (n = 1,061) on their views regarding granting 1) general legal protection, 2) legal personhood, and 3) standing to bring forth a lawsuit, with respect to sentient AI and eight other groups: humans in the jurisdiction, humans outside the jurisdiction, corporations, unions, non-human animals, the environment, humans living in the near future, and humans living in the far future. Roughly one-third of participants endorsed granting personhood and standing to sentient AI (assuming its existence) in at least some cases, the lowest of any group surveyed on, and rated the desired level of protection for sentient AI as lower than all groups other than corporations. We further investigated and observed political differences in responses; liberals were more likely to endorse legal protection and personhood for sentient AI than conservatives. Taken together, these results suggest that laypeople are not by-and-large in favor of granting legal protection to AI, and that the ordinary conception of legal status, similar to codified legal doctrine, is not based on a mere capacity to feel pleasure and pain. At the same time, the observed political differences suggest that previous literature regarding political differences in empathy and moral circle expansion apply to artificially intelligent systems and extend partially, though not entirely, to legal consideration, as well.

The Conflict Between People’s Urge to Punish AI and Legal Systems

Regulating artificial intelligence (AI) has become necessary in light of its deployment in high-risk scenarios. This paper explores the proposal to extend legal personhood to AI and robots, which had not yet been examined through the lens of the general public. We present two studies (N = 3,559) to obtain people’s views of electronic legal personhood vis-à-vis existing liability models. Our study reveals people’s desire to punish automated agents even though these entities are not recognized any mental state. Furthermore, people did not believe automated agents’ punishment would fulfill deterrence nor retribution and were unwilling to grant them legal punishment preconditions, namely physical independence and assets. Collectively, these findings suggest a conflict between the desire to punish automated agents and its perceived impracticability. We conclude by discussing how future design and legal decisions may influence how the public reacts to automated agents’ wrongdoings.

Legal personhood of Latin American rivers: time to shift constitutional paradigms?

Diverse existing legal paradigms have dealt with the interaction of humans and Nature in different ways. We identify three main lenses through which current constitutional systems in Latin America have operated to resolve conflicts. We focus on rivers as emblematic elements of Nature that offer concrete possibilities to operationalize an emerging paradigm that recognizes legal personhood for Nature. The objective is to examine, from a critical interdisciplinary perspective, the existing paradigms, describe their limits and open the debate to alternative jurisdictional venues for favouring the coexistence of humans and natural systems. Through the comparative analysis of three case studies in Chile, Colombia and Ecuador, we outline the challenges and opportunities offered by an emerging legal tradition, ‘The New Latin American Constitutionalism’, and question what would effectively be different with a change of paradigm towards the recognition of Nature’s rights.

Sanctuary in a Trumpist Context: Creating Spaces of Democratic Exception

This paper first identifies the necessity for sanctuary as a form of protest against the discretionary and often absolute forms of power shaping the current immigration system, particularly as it affects undocumented immigrants. Although the plenary power doctrine has removed legal personhood from immigrants at the federal level since the late 1800s, immigrants’ rightlessness and vulnerability to detention and deportation has grown since Trump was elected. It distinguishes between a sanctuary city and church-based sanctuary, holding that the latter fits more ancient conceptions of sanctuary. Faith-based sanctuary is also more radical than sanctuary cities, challenging sovereign power over immigrants who are largely rightless. The discourse of “earned citizenship” holds that undocumented immigrants must make amends to U.S. society and pay back taxes as well as earning the trust of the American public. In contrast, church-based sanctuary exposes the faulty logic of such claims, educating the public about the undocumented individual’s existing ties to the community and his/her contributions. In humanizing the legal non-person, church-based sanctuary practices explode conventional binary between citizen and foreigner, problematizing claims of merit on the one side and lack of deservingness or alien status on the other.