The Guardian view on granting legal rights to AI: humans should not give house-room to an ill-advised debate | Editorial

submitted by

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/07/t…

11
107

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old

Ooh, while we’re at it, let’s also address corporate personhood.

 reply
38

I don’t think we have time to build a guillotine that big

 reply
6

Not with that attitude we don’t.

 reply
4

I think the move here, based on recent events, is to hire an AI to do it then fire everyone else and complain that it isn’t built yet.

 reply
2

“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.”

– IBM Training Manual, 1979

We’re going so backwards…

 reply
9

A computer’s inability to be held accountable is a key feature for those wishing to use AI for nefarious purposes.

 reply
8

The thing with taking responsibility is that it isn’t actually about punishing a potential maldoer.

It’s to ensure that a safe outcome is guaranteed (as much as realistically possible). If you have a fire-proof door that automatically seals itself air-tight in case of a fire and stops the fire that way, that door is considered responsible too. Even though it doesn’t have a single living cell in it.

 reply
0

Wait, what, who? Is someone seriously proposing giving legal rights to fucking LLMs? Is it fucking Sam Altman again?

 reply
4
edited

By the way, granting AI personhood would not mean it gets special privileges or extra protection or sth.

Companies are legally speaking persons too. That doesn’t mean that people recognize them as “alive and sentient”. It merely means that companies are able to possess property, enter contracts, file lawsuits, and such. Not more, not less.

 reply
1
Insert image