1. 5
  1.  

  2. 7

    “Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot.”

    This seems like a reasonable barrier for now. Once machines demonstrate that they should have civil rights, then the issue can be revisited.

    1. 1

      Once machines demonstrate that they should have civil rights, then the issue can be revisited.

      How would machines demonstrate that?

      1. 3

        In the best timelines, they would politely ask. (I have retrieved the full fictional speech from the Internet Archive, for those who want to read it.)

        1. 1

          I’m also curious, but to be honest, I’m not sure if I would want to learn that empirically ;)

        2. 1

          Obviously this is talking about UK law and not US law, but in the US the definition of “a person” can be stretched beyond what you’d normally expect.

          1. 1

            Legal personhood is slightly needed, that article is missing a lot of the “why” things changed: https://www.upcounsel.com/corporate-personhood

            Without it, technically the government can just seize corporate assets as an example.

            Also legal personhood != human person even under the law. They are distinct. Note this all is from my laywer drinking buddy but the one time I asked him about it he had a bit of a sigh that the nuances are a lot more complex than “corporations are people under law” like it was some sort of soylent green situation. The Tillman act as an example is a good example of why you want personhood for businesses. Unless we want to not be able to collectively barter as a group I would argue that is a good thing.

            1. 1

              Out of curiosity, why is corporate personhood necessary to prevent arbitrary seizure of corporate assets given that a natural person (human) owns the corporation and therefore owns the assets? It seems like that would have been a much simpler way of making that work. So it feels like there must be a lot more to it.