Rights, Robots, and the Law: What Happens if AI Gets a Seat at the Legal Table?

April 14th 2025

As AI capabilities expand, society may be distracted by sci-fi anxieties — like rogue machines or existential threats — while a more subtle, pressing issue gains traction: what if AI is quietly granted legal rights? Let’s dive into the concept of AI legal personhood, not from the perspective of apocalyptic fiction, but as a real and plausible shift in how legal systems could evolve.

Through attempts like Stephen Thaler’s efforts to register patents and copyrights in the name of AI systems, the legal boundaries are already being tested. While courts have rejected these so far, the mere fact that such cases exist shows we’re inching toward a world where AI could be allowed to hold property, sign contracts, or even sue — all without human accountability. The idea is not just theoretical; it mirrors the historical precedent of granting corporate entities limited forms of personhood.

Supporters of expanding AI rights might argue that as these systems act with more autonomy, they deserve a framework to interact with society and commerce. After all, AI models might manage funds, create original content, or power autonomous systems. Why not give them legal standing to reflect those capabilities?

But critics argue that this overlooks a critical difference: corporations are ultimately governed by humans, whereas AI systems could become economic actors without direct oversight, potentially creating feedback loops of power, wealth, and decision-making that no person directly controls. This challenges core human institutions — especially legal responsibility and ownership — in ways that could shift the balance of power permanently.

Drawing an analogy to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (ironically, a law to protect human dignity), the article calls for a firm line: AI should not be allowed to own property, hold financial assets, or enter into contracts. This isn’t to stifle innovation, but to ensure that laws remain fundamentally human-centered. If legal frameworks become “machine-neutral,” they may erode the very freedoms they were built to protect.

The conclusion is stark: if we don’t act now, we may find ourselves not in a dystopia of robotic overlords, but in a slow-burning reality where humans are increasingly controlled by systems we legally empowered.

Source: The Hill