The Chief Justice Chandrachud's views on the ethical aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly regarding AI personhood and citizenship rights, was an interesting cerebral exercise. He questions if all living beings, including human-like robots, should have personhood and citizenship based on their identity.
In my opinion, conferring legal personhood to AI poses a significant conflict of interest when compared to the treatment of humankind, primarily because it challenges the foundational principles of human rights and ethical standards.
One of the biggest challenges is the accountability and liability of AI actions. If AI is granted personhood, determining who is responsible for its actions becomes complex. In cases where AI makes autonomous decisions leading to harm or legal violations, the question arises: is the AI itself liable, or are the creators, operators, or owners responsible?
Extending personhood to AI could potentially undermine the unique status and sanctity of human rights. Human rights are based on inherent human qualities like consciousness and emotional depth, which AI lacks. Equating AI with humans in legal status might devalue these rights, leading to ethical dilemmas and legal complications. Recognizing AI as legal persons might shift focus and resources away from pressing human issues.
The CJI had given the keynote speech at the 36th ‘LAWASIA’ conference emphasized the role of identity in accessing resources and demanding rights. The honourable CJI mentioned Saudi Arabia’s unprecedented move to grant citizenship to Sophia, an AI robot, marks a significant shift in how legal systems may perceive AI.
The decision by Saudi Arabia to grant citizenship to an AI robot maybe be viewed as a landmark moment in the evolution of AI and its integration into society. This act of recognising the personhood of AI raises fundamental questions about the nature of personhood and the rights that come with it. Traditionally, legal personhood has been associated with humans, but extending it to AI challenges this notion, forcing a reevaluation of what constitutes a legal ‘person.’
The legal system is designed around human cognition, emotion, and moral understanding. AI, even with advanced capabilities, operates based on algorithms and programming devoid of genuine emotions or moral conscience. Holding AI on par with humans in terms of legal and moral responsibilities could lead to complex scenarios where traditional legal principles are not readily applicable.
In conclusion, while the advancement of AI technology necessitates a reevaluation of legal and ethical frameworks, equating AI with humans in terms of personhood could lead to conflicts of interest, ethical conundrums, and a potential undermining of human-centric legal principles. Are we ready to accept AI as an advancement of the humankind?
Launch your Graphy
