In this paper, I discuss whether in a society where the use of artificial agents is pervasive, these agents should be recognized as having rights like those we accord to group agents. This kind of recognition I understand to be at once social and legal, and I argue that in order for an artificial agent to be so recognized, it will need to meet the same basic conditions in light of which group agents are granted such recognition. I then explore (...) the implications of granting recognition in this manner. The thesis I will be defending is that artificial agents that do meet the conditions of agency in light of which we ascribe rights to group agents should thereby be recognized as having similar rights. The reason for bringing group agents into the picture is that, like artificial agents, they are not self-evidently agents of the sort to which we would naturally ascribe rights, or at least that is what the historical record suggests if we look, for example, at what it took for corporations to gain legal status in the law as group agents entitled to rights and, consequently, as entities subject to responsibilities. This is an example of agency ascribed to a nonhuman agent, and just as a group agent can be described as nonhuman, so can an artificial agent. Therefore, if these two kinds of nonhuman agents can be shown to be sufficiently similar in relevant ways, the agency ascribed to one can also be ascribed to the other—this despite the fact that neither is human, a major impediment when it comes to recognizing an entity as an agent proper, and hence as a bearer of rights. (shrink)

La Ley de la IA ha sido aprobada en marzo 2024 y el presente escrito analiza algunos aspectos de dicha Ley en relación con los derechos fundamentales, que preocupan tanto a la sociedad. Iniciando con algunos apuntes críticos relativos a la primera versión de la propuesta, el trabajo enfoca la visión general de losderechos fundamentales presentada en esta Ley y argumenta que si bien los derechos fundamentales están presentes y concretados a través de distintos derechos en distintos contextos (laboral, consumo, (...) etc.), la Ley no hace ninguna referencia sustancial a algunos de los derechos fundamentales, para los cualeslas aplicaciones basadas en IA podrían significar un gran cambio. En consecuencia, el artículo identifica algunos aspectos de la visión normativa de la IA que podría ser más beneficiosa a los ciudadanos y sus derechos. (shrink)

This paper proposes to address the question of the legal status of artificial intelligence from a perspective that is unique to itself. Which means that, rather than attempting to place AI in the box of legal personhood—where many other nonhuman entities already reside, in a legal space where they are in a state of constant friction with humans—we will see whether these inhabitants can be placed in a different box: not that of legal personhood, but that of the intelligent machine. (...) I accordingly argue that we have made a mistake in not clearly maintaining the original separation between legal persons and human persons: this is how legal persons—particularly as the concept applies to corporations—have so far been claiming and gaining the rights ascribed to humans, on the basis of their personhood. AI instead suggests the need to work outside the framework of this fiction: it suggests that we should stop using the fiction of the person for something that is not a person in the first place and in the most original and primary sense of this word. I propose a different metaphor, the metaphor of the intelligent machine, to this end drawing on the work of Dan-Cohen, who advanced this metaphor to argue that it fits corporations better than the metaphor of the person. In conclusion, we should be able to see that this metaphor of the intelligent machine makes a better fit not only for corporations but also for AI and robotics. (shrink)