we already have a mechanism to establish artificial persons, it is called incorporation.
We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
11–20 of 122 posts
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision." —- internal 1979 IBM training manual > Cheating is the problem: not who does it. Accountability is the problem. Without accountability, there are no incentives to encourage less harmful behavior. AI has no rights, it is just code executing.
If we ban AI for cheating but let human cheating go unchecked how does that solve the problem of cheating? And I'm 100% sure managers are right now using AI to make decisions, or even cheat, IBM training manual wisdom not withstanding.
> let human cheating go unchecked
Nobody is suggesting to do that.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#13Why not? We give full pershood to corporations. Those are also legal fictions.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#14But we also must not grant AI liabilities to large corporations.
As such, all AIs will now be granted as child of the least lawyered up class of society. Poor people.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#15If I smooshed a gun and an AI agent together and it happened to shoot someone, who would be responsible? Are we going to go back to the medieval times of animal trials and taking inanimate objects to court?
You would be responsible.
It is like asking "if I connected a bomb on random number generator letting it explode when the number is 1000, not knowing whether someone will be there at the time of explosion or not".
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#16Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those
> "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
LLCs were invented precisely to go around that in most cases
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#18If I smooshed a gun and an AI agent together and it happened to shoot someone, who would be responsible? Are we going to go back to the medieval times of animal trials and taking inanimate objects to court?
> In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#19[deleted]
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
LLCs were invented precisely to go around that in most cases
Not for the most important things, like murdering people, fraud, etc. Executives are prosecuted for these kinds of things and the mere fact that it can happen shapes their behavior.
An AI cannot be punished at all. So they will not behave with that in mind.