A few thoughts on the legal personhood of artificial intelligence
DO HOON KIM,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18189/isicu.2023.30.1.165
2023-04-30
The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University
Abstract:Legal discussions and legislative reform on new technologies with large ripple effects, such as AI, need to be preceded before the technology reaches a certain point. In particular, whether to recognize AI as a legal personhood is an issue that requires preliminary discussion and arrangement in that it can cause many changes.
Currently, the legal status of AI is a thing. Therefore, the legal personhood of AI is not recognized. Of course, there is an institutional possibility to recognize the legal personhood of AI. However, the corresponding social needs are not identified. At this point, it is difficult to identify significant problems or limitations in legal discipline that would necessitate changes to the legal status of AI. In addition, considering the level of AI technology and the extent of its utilization, it is difficult to ascertain a sufficient social need and consensus on changing the legal status of AI. Therefore, there is no need to change the legal status of AI at this point. However, there is a possibility that the demand and need for changes in the legal status of AI can be met in the future due to the development of AI-related technology, the increase in the use of AI, the cycle of improved awareness of AI, and the expansion of AI's autonomy. In addition, considering the degree of change that AI with sufficient autonomy can bring about, it is a reasonable response to set the basic direction and framework in advance.
The law is human-centered, and there is a high possibility that it will continue to be human-centered. The reason AI technology can be socially accepted is also because AI can help humans. However, the development of technology and the expansion of AI's autonomy and the formation of self-consciousness induce the possibility that AI can stand in a position superior to humans. Therefore, if the premise of human-centered law is to be maintained, it is necessary to institutionally limit the possibility that AI can stand in a position superior to humans through law and take measures so that humans can manage AI. Therefore, even if the autonomy of AI is sufficiently secured through technological development, it is still reasonable to treat AI as a thing. This is because if exceptions are allowed, unpredictable problems may occur. However, there is still room for situations in which social needs are met. In such a case, it is a reasonable approach to prepare the grounds for treating AI differently from things rather than changing the legal status of the AI.