AI And Personhood: Navigating Legal Rights And Responsibilities In The Age Of Intelligent Machines
The rapidly evolving world of Generative Artificial Intelligence has sparked a debate about the legal status of Artificial Intelligence[1]. Artificial Intelligence has broadened its capabilities, built upon human-made algorithms and machine learning, exponentially increasing its potential. As AI has grown from being Narrow - AI (designed to perform specific tasks) to Strong - AI (designed to possess Human-Level Intelligence), the question arises: should Artificial Intelligence be granted personhood?
The concept of personhood traditionally applies to human beings, providing them with constitutional and legal rights vis-à-vis duties[2]. However, in the case of Artificial Intelligence, which is neither a natural nor a legal person, the issue becomes far more complex, raising serious debates in Legal, Philosophical and ethical domains.
The current legal framework is based on binary distinctions between person and thing. Personhood is a legal and philosophical construct that confers certain rights and liabilities, upon an entity[3]. Initially, the recognition as a person was available only to natural persons, later the recognition was extended to corporations, as a legal person[4]. Since the extension of Legal recognitions to corporations the corporation can own properties (bundle of rights) in their names, coupled with the adjoining duties. However, the extension of personhood to Artificial Intelligence presents a challenge. Arguably Artificial intelligence is not self-aware (human consciousness)[5]. Due to the self-learning abilities from the available data and inputs gathered, the onus of any action or decision can't be imputed solely on the designer, deployer or user. Therefore the moot question is can Artificial Intelligence devoid of consciousness and agency, be recognised as a person in the Eye of the Law? The importance of the personhood determination could be understood from the question: If an accident is caused by the autonomous vehicle, who would be held liable? The manufacturer, the developer, the passenger? In Belgium, a man committed suicide, after talking to a Chatbot named ELIZA (that uses GPT-J, an intelligence model developed by EleutherAI)[6], who would be held liable for abatement to suicide here?
In India, in the existing legal framework, Artificial Intelligence is treated as a tool or property in the hands of its developers, owners, or deployers. However, In the absence of any specific provisions, The Information Technology Act, of 2000 protects the Artificial Intelligence generated content, without extending personhood to Artificial intelligence. The definitions like “electronic record, Section - 2(1)(t)" "computer, Section - 2(1)(i)" and "computer system” Section - 2(1)(l), if constructively interpreted may encompass the aspects of Artificial intelligence in it.
The critics of the AI personhood argue that Artificial Intelligence no matter how advanced, cannot be equated with humans[7]. The other rationale is, that giving personhood to Artificial Intelligence will make Artificial Intelligence entitled to claim legal rights and fundamental rights available to legal persons. The Supreme Court of India in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others, 1950[8], (3 Judges Bench) held that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not only accessible by singular natives but also by corporate bodies. This will pave the way to bypass restrictions and prospective AI regulations. Granting the status of a person to artificial intelligence would have ethical considerations about moral agency and human dignity coupled with power and control regarding surveillance, automation, and decision-making.
In the European Union, the EU AI Act, of 2023 levies the liability on distinct persons in distinct circumstances without granting personhood[9]. Similar, is the case with the United States. The United States has no regulation granting personhood to Artificial Intelligence but regulates Artificial Intelligence through its National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, Intellectual Property and Liability Laws. Congress is considering coming up with a comprehensive and unified legislative enactment to regulate Artificial Intelligence.
The supporting argument for granting personhood to Artificial Intelligence argues that granting the personhood would ensure Accountability and Responsibility, Clarity and Predictability, along with Representation in legal and ethical discussions. Whereas the critics of personhood to AI propels that granting legal recognition would cause the anthropocentrism of Artificial intelligence, vis-a-vis shifting responsibility in case of Unintended Consequences.
The Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), (Constitutional Bench) recognised the right to privacy as a 'Fundamental Right', floating from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[10]. This recognizes the privacy protection of individuals in the digital age where technological intrusion is all pervasive. This landmark judgement serves as a basis for considering privacy and rights concerning AI, even if it does not address AI personhood directly.
The NITI Ayog policy paper, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (2018) aims to foster AI Innovation vis-à-vis addressing ethical issues. The question of AI personhood remains unexplored in this paper. At this time when Artificial Intelligence is in its budding stage, rather than solely focusing on the personhood of AI the futuristic approach would be to develop a tiered system of legal and ethical considerations for Artificial Intelligence. The structured approach would be compartmentalising Artificial Intelligence in Low-risk AI systems, Medium-risk AI systems, High-risk AI systems and Severely-High-risk AI systems in military or medical deployment. A pragmatic approach would be to define different categories of Artificial Intelligence, depending on autonomy, complexity, and potential for unforeseen consequences. Establishing specific rights and responsibilities for each category along with Creating regulatory bodies and ethical guidelines would be a prudent approach.
Amidst the debate over the personhood of Artificial Intelligence, policymakers must move towards a comprehensive regulatory framework for regulating Artificial intelligence. The AI regulation has to balance the responsible innovation and ethical considerations of having rampant AI involvement in every domain. At this time it is quintessential that lawmakers and legal scholars engage in cross-disciplinary discussions with all stakeholders (entrepreneurs, technocrats, philosophers, ethicists, etc.) on ethical considerations of Artificial Intelligence. Legal personhood of Artificial Intelligence is not a magic bullet for Ethics, rather it is just a means to have an End. The status of a person which would be statutory creation would come with its potential benefits and risks. The global debate should shift from "personhood" to "responsibility" with a focus on creating a framework that ensures AI is developed and used in a way that benefits humanity.
Authors: Pranjal Chaturvedi is a Doctoral Research Fellow at Bennett University and Dr Suhasini is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, at Bennett University. Views are personal.
Elyoseph, Z., Shoval, D. H., & Levkovich, I. (2024). Beyond Personhood: Ethical Paradigms in the generative Artificial Intelligence era. The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(1), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2278546 ↑
Kurki, V. a. J. (2023). Legal personhood. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009025614 ↑
Kurki, V. A. (2019). Introduction. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 1–28). ↑
The State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer, 1963 AIR 1811 ↑
Neuroscience News. (2023, October 28). Is AI mimicking consciousness or truly becoming aware? ↑
Atillah, I. E. (2023, March 31). Man ends his life after an AI chatbot “encouraged” him to sacrifice himself to stop climate change. Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-life-after-an-ai-chatbot-encouraged-him-to-sacrifice-himself-to-stop-climate- ↑
Doomen, J. (2023). The artificial intelligence entity as a legal person. Information & Communications Technology Law, 32(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2023.2196827 ↑
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others, 1951 AIR 41 ↑
The EU's AI Act: review and what it means for EU and Non-EU companies. (n.d.). Pillsbury Law. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/eu-ai-act.html ↑
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841 ↑