Hybrid theory of corporate legal personhood and its application to artificial intelligence
Tóm tắt
Artificial intelligence (AI) is often compared to corporations in legal studies when discussing AI legal personhood. This article also uses this analogy between AI and companies to study AI legal personhood but contributes to the discussion by utilizing the hybrid model of corporate legal personhood. The hybrid model simultaneously applies the real entity, aggregate entity, and artificial entity models. This article adopts a legalistic position, in which anything can be a legal person. However, there might be strong pragmatic reasons not to confer legal personhood on non-human entities. The article recognizes that artificial intelligence is autonomous by definition and has greater de facto autonomy than corporations and, consequently, greater potential for de jure autonomy. Therefore, AI has a strong attribute to be a real entity. Nevertheless, the article argues that AI has key characteristics from the aggregate entity and artificial entity models. Therefore, the hybrid entity model is more applicable to AI legal personhood than any single model alone. The discussion recognises that AI might be too autonomous for legal personhood. Still, it concludes that the hybrid model is a useful analytical framework as it incorporates legal persons with different levels of de jure and de facto autonomy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Araujo T et al (2020) In AI We Trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI Soc 35(3):611–623
Avila Negri SMC (2021) Robot as legal person: electronic personhood in robotics and artificial intelligence. Front Robot and AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.789327
Banteka N (2021) Artificially Intelligent Persons. Houston Law Rev 58(3):537–596
Bartneck C et al (2020) An introduction to ethics in robotics and AI. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham
Bayamlıoğlu E, Leenes R (2018) The ’Rule of Law’ implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective. Law Innov Technol 10(22):295–313
Beck S (2016) The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics. AI Soc 31:473–481
Berle A Jr (1952) Constitutional limitations on corporate activity-protection of personal rights from invasion through economic power. Univ Pa Law Rev 100(7):933–955
Bertolini A, Episcopo F (2022) Robots and AI as legal subjects disentangling the ontological and functional perspective. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.842213
Bryson JJ et al (2017) Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artif Intell Law 25(3):273–291
Cappuro R (2012) Towards a comparative theory of agents. AI Soc 2012(27):479–488
Chatman CN (2018) The corporate personhood two-step. Nevada Law J 18(3):811–861
Chen J, Burgess P (2019) The boundaries of legal personhood: how spontaneous intelligence can problematise differences between humans, artificial intelligence, companies and animals. Artif Intell Law 27(1):73–92
Chesterman S (2020) Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. Int Comp Law Quart 69(4):819–844
Chopra S, Laurence FW (2011) A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Dennett DC (1988) When philosophers encounter artificial intelligence. Daedalus (cambridge, Mass) 117(1):283–295
Dewey J (1926) The historic background of corporate legal personality. Yale Law J 35(6):655–673
Dodd EM (1948) The evolution of limited liability in American industry: Massachusetts. Harv Law Rev 61(8):1351–1379
Donyets-Kedar R (2017) Challenging corporate personhood theory: reclaiming the public. Law Ethics Human Rights 11(1):61–88
Duschkant A (2015) Legal personhood: how we are getting it wrong. Univ Ill Law Rev 5:2075–2110
Erdelyi OJ, Erdelyi G (2021) The AI liability puzzle and a fund-based work-around. J Artif Intell Res. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12580
European Commission (2020). White Paper On Artificial Intelligence-A European approach to excellence and trust (COM(2020) 65 final). Brussels. (PDF) Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d2ec4039-c5be-423a-81ef-b9e44e79825b_en?filename=commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2023
European Commission (2021). Artificial Intelligence Act. (COM(2021) 206 final). Brussels, 21.4.2021. (PDF) Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206,10.5.2023
Fleischer H (2010) Supranational corporate forms in the European union: prolegomena to a theory on supranational forms of association. Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1671–1717
Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14:349–379
Giuffrida I (2019) Liability for AI decision-making: some legal and ethical considerations. Fordham Law Rev 88(2):439–456
Gordon J-S (2020) What do we owe to intelligent robots? AI Soc 35(1):209–223
Gordon J-S (2021) Artificial moral and legal personhood. AI Soc 36.2:457–471
Gordon J-S (2022) Are superintelligent robots entitled to human rights? Ratio (oxford) 35(3):181–193
Gray JC et al (1997) The nature and sources of the law by John Chipman Gray. Routledge, London & New York
Grewal DS (2014) A critical conceptual analysis of definitions of artificial intelligence as applicable to computer engineering. IOSR J Comput Eng 16:9–13
Gunkel DJ, Wales JJ (2021) Debate: what is personhood in the age of AI? AI Soc 36(2):473–486
Hansmann H et al (2006) Law and the rise of the firm. Harv Law Rev 119(5):1333–1403
Hildebrandt M (2016) Law as information in the Era of data-driven agency. Mod Law Rev 79(1):1–30
Hildebrandt M (2018) Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Ser a: Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2128):20170355
IEEE (2016). Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems. Version 1, IEEE. Available at: https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/other/ead_v1.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2023
IEEE (2017). Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Version 2, IEEE. Available at: https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2023
IEEE (2021). Raising the Standards in Artificial Intelligence Systems (AIS). IEEE. Available at: https://standards.ieee.org/initiatives/artificial-intelligence-systems/index.html. Accessed 2 April 2021
Jaynes TL (2020) Legal personhood for artificial intelligence: citizenship as the exception to the rule. AI Soc 2020(35):343–354
Jewitt J (2021) Assessing contemporary legislative proposals for their compatibility with a natural law case for AI legal personhood. AI & Soc 36(2):499–508
Kurki VA (2019) A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lai A (2021) Artificial intelligence, LLC: corporate personhood for AI. Mich. St. L. Rev. 2021: 597. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677360
Laukyte M (2021) The intelligent machine: a new metaphor through which to understand both corporations and AI. AI Soc 36(2):445–456
List C (2021) Group agency and artificial intelligence. Philos Technol 34(4):1213–1242
Machen AW (1911a) Corporate personality (continued). Harv Law Rev 24(5):347–365
Machen AW (1911b) Corporate Personality. Harv Law Rev 24(4):253–267
Martínez E, Winter C (2021) Protecting sentient artificial intelligence: a survey of lay intuitions on standing, personhood, and general legal protection. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.788355
Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A (2003) The company. A short history of a revolutionary idea. The Modern Library, Newyork
Mocanu DM (2021) Gradient legal personhood for AI systems-painting continental legal shapes made to fit analytical molds. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.788179
Naffine N (2003) Who are Law’s Persons? From Cheshire cats to responsible subjects. Mod Law Rev 66(3):346–367
Novelli C (2022) Legal personhood for the integration of AI systems in the social context: a study hypothesis. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01384-w
Novelli C et al (2022) A conceptual framework for legal personality and its application to AI. Jurisprudence (oxford, England) 13(2):194–219
Pagallo U (2018a) Vital, sophia, and co—the quest for the legal personhood of robots. Information (basel) 9(9):230
Pagallo U (2018b) Apples, oranges, robots four misunderstandings in today’s debate on the legal status of AI systems. Philos Trans R Soc London, Ser A 376(2133):20180168
Parviainen J, Coeckelbergh M (2021) The political choreography of the Sophia robot: beyond robot rights and citizenship to political performances for the social robotics market. AI Soc 36(3):715–724
Penrose R (1990) The emperor’s new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Phillips MJ (1994) Reappraising the real entity theory of the corporation. Fla State Univ Law Rev 2(4):1061–1123
Proudfoot D (2011) Anthropomorphism and AI: Turing’s much misunderstood imitation game. Artif Intell 175:950–957
Raskulla S (2022) European constitution of corporations: legal personhood, legal powers & legal governance of corporate entities in the European union. Tampere University, Tampere
Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457
Sellwood M (2017) The road to autonomy. San Diego Law Rev 54(4):829
Shevlin H (2021) Non-human consciousness and the specificity problem: a modest theoretical proposal. Mind Lang 36(2):297–314
Smith B (1928) Legal personality. Yale Law J 37(3):283–299
Solaiman SM (2017) Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy. Artif Intell Law 25(2):155–179
Solum LB (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carolina Law Rev 70(4):1231–1287
von Savigny FC (1884) Jural relations; or the roman law of persons as subjects of jural relations. Hyperion Press, Inc, Newyork
Wendehorst C (2020) Strict liability for AI and other emerging technologies. J Eur Tort Law 11(2):150–180
Wirtz BW et al (2019) Artificial intelligence and the public sector-applications and challenges. Int J Public Adm 42(7):596–615
Yampolskiy RV (2018) Human indignity from legal AI personhood to selfish memes. arXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.02724
Zech H (2021) Liability for AI: public policy considerations. ERA-Forum 22(1):147–158
Zevenbergen B et al (2018) Appropriateness and feasibility of legal personhood for AI systems. Hybrid Worlds: Societal and Ethical Challenges: n. pag. Available at: https://clawar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ICRES2018_p59_paper-17.pdf