Advertisement

Do We Need New Legal Personhood in the Age of Robots and AI?

  • Robert van den Hoven van Genderen
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)

Abstract

Do we need to give robots and AI entities a kind of legal personhood in a robotized society where activities with legal effect are increasingly performed by AI systems and autonomous robots? In this chapter, this question is considered by comparing the requirements of existing legal subjects, natural persons and (artificial) legal persons such as corporations and states. The relevance of free will, intelligence and consciousness of natural persons to acquire legal personhood are analysed and compared with other beings, animals and future AI entities. To give legal personhood to AI is also influenced by the human conviction that this would increase the risk to lose control and a “robot uprising.” Man, as always is afraid of technology getting out of hand and is convinced of their own superiority and therefore always wants to stay in control. In that context, the need for a certain legal personhood in a future legal framework, considering civil liability and even criminal liability is discussed as it is also subjected to considerations by the European Parliament, eventually leading to proposals in European law.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Big Data Ethics Human control Privacy GDPR Legal personhood Subject Disruptive technologies Liability Singularity Robot law 

References

  1. Asimov, I. (1976). The bicentennial man and other stories. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Asimov, I., & Silverberg, R. (1993). The positronic man. London: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Berriat Saint-Prix, J. (1829). Rapport et recherches sur les procès et jugemens relatifs aux animaux. Paris: Imprimerie de Selligue.Google Scholar
  4. Bertolini, A. (2013). Robots as products: The case for a realistic analysis of robotic applications and liability rules. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2), 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin, J. (1955). Les six Livres de la Republique (trans: M. J. Tooley). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brownlie, I. (1990). Principles of public international law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, or, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence Law, 25, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkhart, L. (2016). Symposium—Governance of emerging technologies: Law, policy, and ethics. Jurimetrics, 56, 219–222. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/science_technology/2016/governance_in_emerging_technologies.authcheckdam.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2017.
  10. Carlile, R. (1822). To the republicans of the island of Great Britain. Republican, 16(V).Google Scholar
  11. Chopra, S., & White, L. F. (2011). A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, A. C. (1973). Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Crawford, J. R. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darling, K. (2016). Electronic love, trust, & abuse: Social aspects of robotics. Workshop at the University of Miami, Conference “We Robot”, April 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Delvaux, M. (2017). Report PE582.443v01-00 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2017-0005+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN. Accessed December 8, 2017.
  16. Descartes, R. (1973). Principia philosophiae. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1926). The historic background of corporate legal personality. Yale Law Review, 35(6), 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erven D onder de Linden en zoon. (1831). Boekzaal der geleerde wereld: En tijdschrift voor de Protestantsche kerken in het koningrijk der Nederlanden, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Fagundes, D. (2001). What we talk about when we talk about persons: The language of a legal fiction. Harvard Law Review, 114(6), 1745–1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Future of Life Institute. (2017). An open letter to the United Nations convention on certain conventional weapons. Available at: https://futureoflife.org/autonomous-weapons-open-letter-2017/. Accessed August 21, 2017.
  21. Gardner, H. (1993). The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Geldart, W. M. (1911). Legal personality. Law Quarterly Review, 27, 90–108.Google Scholar
  23. Giliker, P. (2011). Vicarious liability or liability for the acts of others in tort: A comparative perspective. Journal of European Tort Law, 2(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. In F. L. Alt & M. Rubinoff (Eds.), Advances in computers (Vol. 6, pp. 31–88). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. New York: Random House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hildebrandt, M., & Gaakeer, J. (Eds.). (2013). Human law and computer law: Comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Hobbes, T. (1651). Chapter xvi: Of persons, authors, and things personated. In Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.Google Scholar
  28. Hutchinson, A. (2014). The Whanganui river as a legal person. Alternative Law Journal, 39(3), 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurzweil, R. (1990). The age of intelligent machines. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lovejoy, A. O. (1936). The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mayer, C. J. (1990). Personalizing the impersonal: Corporations and the bill of rights. Hastings Law Journal, 41(3), 577–667.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, C. A., & Bennett, I. (2008). Thinking longer term about technology: Is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures? Science and Public Policy, 35(8), 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minors, D. (2017). Can you read my mind? Available at: https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/research-news/2017/2017-09/can-you-read-my-mind. Accessed October 11, 2017.
  34. Mori, M. (2012). The uncanny valley: The original essay by Masahiro Mori. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley. Accessed October 15, 2017.
  35. Naffine, N. (2003). Who are law’s persons? From Cheshire cats to responsible subjects. Modern Law Review, 66(3), 346–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohlin, J. D. (2005). Is the concept of person necessary for human rights? Columbia Law Review, 105, 209–249.Google Scholar
  37. Pagallo, U. (2013). The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raskin, M. (2017). The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 304(1). https://www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/the-law-and-legality-of-smart-contracts/GLTR-04-2017/. Accessed October 20, 2017.
  39. Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2014). Big data ethics. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 393–432.Google Scholar
  40. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  41. Safi, M. (2017). Ganges and Yamuna rivers granted same legal rights as human beings. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/21/ganges-and-yamuna-rivers-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-beings. Accessed May 13, 2017.
  42. Schaerer, E., Kelley, R., & Nicolescu, M. (2009). Robots as animals: A framework for liability and responsibility in human-robot interaction. In Robot and human interaction communication. RO-MAN 2009—The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. Journal Advanced Robotics, 24(13), 1861–1871.Google Scholar
  43. Science and Technology Committee. (2016). Robotics and artificial intelligence. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/14506.htm#_idTextAnchor014. Accessed October 25, 2017.
  44. Segrave, K. (2002). Vending machines: An American social history. Chicago: McFarland & Co.Google Scholar
  45. Shoyama, R. (2005). Intelligent agents: Authors, makers, and owners of computer-generated works in Canadian copyright law. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 4(2), 129–140.Google Scholar
  46. Solum, L. B. (1992). Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 70(4), 1238–1239.Google Scholar
  47. Teubner, G. (2007). Rights of Non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law. Badia Fiesolana: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  48. The Global Slavery Index. (2016). https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/. Accessed October 12, 2017.
  49. Tjong Tjin Tai, T. F. E. (2016). Private law for homo digitalis, use and maintenance. In Preliminary advice for NVJ (p. 248).Google Scholar
  50. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, New Series, 59(236), 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinge, V. (1993). The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the post-human era. NASA, Lewis Research Center, Vision, 21, 11–22. Available at: https://edoras.sdsu.edu/~vinge/misc/singularity.html. Accessed October 25, 2017.
  52. Von Bar, C., & Clive, E. (Eds.). (2009). Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (CDFR). Munich: Sellier. European Law Publishers GmbH.Google Scholar
  53. Voulon, M. B. (2010). Automatisch Contracteren. Dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  54. Weschler, D. (1955). The range of human capacities. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  55. Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings. Houghton Mifflin: Eyre & Spottiswoode.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawCenter for Law and Internet, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.SwitchAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations