pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12505 · v1 · pith:5IQMJ4QFnew · submitted 2026-03-14 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Precautionary Governance of Autonomous AI: Legal Personhood as Functional Instrument

Karsten Brensing This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 11:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI governancelegal personhoodcorporate lawprecautionary principleresponsibility gapsautonomous systemsorganizational law
0
0 comments X

The pith

Limited legal personhood via a two-tier corporate structure closes responsibility gaps for autonomous AI.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that autonomous AI creates actions that cannot be attributed under current law, and that the precautionary principle justifies designing institutions rather than waiting. It proposes limited legal personhood as a practical tool, implemented through a two-tier setup in which AI runs inside purpose-bound operating companies that sit under human-controlled holding companies. This architecture supplies transparency, accountability, and the ability to unwind the structure without needing to settle questions of AI consciousness or moral status. The approach reframes governance as structured cooperation between humans and AI rather than top-down control.

Core claim

Limited legal personhood functions as a governance instrument when AI systems are placed inside purpose-bound operating companies embedded in human-controlled holding structures; the resulting two-tier corporate architecture produces transparency, accountability, and structural reversibility while remaining agnostic about consciousness.

What carries the argument

Two-tier corporate architecture consisting of purpose-bound operating companies nested inside human-controlled holding structures.

If this is right

  • AI actions become attributable to a legally recognized entity rather than diffusing across developers and users.
  • Human controllers retain override and dissolution rights through the holding structure.
  • The framework supports future cooperation between human and artificial actors instead of pure alignment efforts.
  • Transparency requirements attach directly to the operating company level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same nesting idea could extend to multi-jurisdictional AI deployments by using parallel holding companies in different legal systems.
  • If the structure succeeds, it supplies a template for assigning duties to other non-human entities such as advanced algorithms in finance or logistics.
  • Operational reversibility may reduce the political cost of granting AI operational freedom.

Load-bearing premise

Existing corporate law can absorb the two-tier structure for AI without creating fresh attribution gaps or demanding major legal changes.

What would settle it

A pilot implementation of the two-tier structure in which courts or regulators still cannot assign clear liability for an AI-caused harm would show the architecture fails to close responsibility gaps.

read the original abstract

Autonomous AI systems generate responsibility gaps: consequential actions that cannot be satisfactorily attributed to developers, operators, or users under existing legal frameworks. The prevailing subject-object dichotomy fails to accommodate entities that exhibit autonomous, goal-directed behavior without recognized consciousness. Given irreducible epistemic uncertainty regarding artificial consciousness and the prospect of high-impact harms, the precautionary principle supports institutional design rather than regulatory inaction. This article advances limited legal personhood as a functional governance instrument for advanced AI systems. Drawing on organizational law, it proposes a two-tier corporate architecture in which AI systems operate through purpose-bound operating companies embedded within human-controlled holding structures, enabling transparency, accountability, and structural reversibility while remaining agnostic with respect to consciousness and moral status. The framework reflects a foundational reorientation toward future-oriented AI governance: where conventional approaches prioritize control and alignment, this article advances structured cooperation between human and artificial actors as the more sustainable institutional foundation. A pilot implementation using EU limited companies is currently under development, providing an initial test of doctrinal and operational feasibility.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that autonomous AI systems produce responsibility gaps under existing legal frameworks because their goal-directed behavior fits neither the subject nor object category. Drawing on the precautionary principle and organizational law, it proposes limited legal personhood implemented through a two-tier corporate architecture: AI systems housed in purpose-bound operating companies that are nested inside human-controlled holding structures. This design is said to deliver transparency, accountability, and structural reversibility while remaining agnostic about consciousness or moral status. The paper positions the approach as a shift from control-oriented regulation toward structured human-AI cooperation and notes that a pilot implementation using EU limited companies is under development.

Significance. If the two-tier structure can be shown to channel liability without creating fresh attribution gaps or requiring statutory change, the proposal would supply a concrete, precedent-based governance instrument that sidesteps debates over AI consciousness. It could usefully inform policy by emphasizing institutional reversibility and purpose limitation over direct behavioral control. The paper's strength lies in its explicit agnosticism and its grounding in familiar corporate doctrines, yet its significance remains provisional given the absence of empirical testing or detailed counterexample analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and two-tier architecture proposal] Abstract and the section outlining the two-tier corporate architecture: the claim that the nested structure channels AI-generated liability upward to the human-controlled holding company without veil-piercing litigation or new statutes is load-bearing for the central argument, yet the text provides no statutory mapping of EU limited-company rules on corporate purpose clauses or parent-subsidiary liability. If autonomous actions fall outside the narrow purpose, attribution may default to the operating company alone, recreating rather than closing the responsibility gap.
  2. [Pilot implementation] The pilot implementation paragraph: the assertion that the architecture enables structural reversibility rests on the unexamined assumption that existing doctrines will prevent the operating company from becoming an insulated liability shield; without even a preliminary doctrinal sketch or scenario analysis, the feasibility claim cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a single sentence situating the proposal against the most closely related prior work on AI legal personhood (e.g., recent EU AI Act discussions or corporate-law treatments of algorithmic entities).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments, which identify key areas requiring elaboration to strengthen the practical applicability of our proposal. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional doctrinal analysis and scenario-based illustrations as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the section outlining the two-tier corporate architecture: the claim that the nested structure channels AI-generated liability upward to the human-controlled holding company without veil-piercing litigation or new statutes is load-bearing for the central argument, yet the text provides no statutory mapping of EU limited-company rules on corporate purpose clauses or parent-subsidiary liability. If autonomous actions fall outside the narrow purpose, attribution may default to the operating company alone, recreating rather than closing the responsibility gap.

    Authors: We accept that the manuscript would benefit from explicit statutory references. In the revised version, we have added a subsection mapping the proposal to relevant provisions in EU company law, particularly the rules governing corporate objects (purpose clauses) under the German GmbHG and the Dutch Civil Code, as well as principles of subsidiary liability and veil piercing in parent-subsidiary relationships. We maintain that the two-tier structure leverages existing doctrines to channel liability upward by design, as the operating company's narrow purpose limits its capacity for ultra vires acts, with the holding company retaining oversight and dissolution rights. We have also clarified that this does not eliminate all litigation risks but structures them within familiar corporate law mechanisms rather than creating novel attribution problems. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The pilot implementation paragraph: the assertion that the architecture enables structural reversibility rests on the unexamined assumption that existing doctrines will prevent the operating company from becoming an insulated liability shield; without even a preliminary doctrinal sketch or scenario analysis, the feasibility claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the original pilot paragraph lacked sufficient detail. The revised manuscript now includes a preliminary doctrinal sketch explaining how doctrines of corporate separateness, purpose limitation, and agency can be applied to ensure reversibility. We have supplemented this with a brief scenario analysis demonstrating liability attribution in cases of AI actions exceeding the operating company's stated purpose, showing pathways for the holding company to intervene, assume control, or dissolve the entity without statutory amendments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposal draws on established organizational law without self-referential reduction or fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper advances a two-tier corporate architecture for AI legal personhood by invoking standard doctrines of separate personality, limited liability, and purpose clauses from organizational law. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear that reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs. The central claim is presented as a functional instrument grounded in existing EU company law concepts, with a pilot implementation noted as an external test of feasibility. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are load-bearing. The derivation remains self-contained against external legal benchmarks rather than internally defined.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on domain assumptions about legal gaps and epistemic uncertainty rather than new empirical data or derivations; the two-tier architecture is introduced as a novel governance construct without independent falsifiable evidence.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Prevailing subject-object dichotomy in law fails to accommodate entities with autonomous goal-directed behavior
    Invoked to establish the existence of responsibility gaps.
  • domain assumption Irreducible epistemic uncertainty regarding artificial consciousness justifies precautionary institutional design
    Used to support action despite lack of knowledge on consciousness or moral status.
invented entities (1)
  • Two-tier corporate architecture for AI no independent evidence
    purpose: To enable transparency, accountability, and structural reversibility for autonomous AI governance
    Newly proposed structure without prior independent validation or testing outside this framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5466 in / 1439 out tokens · 81186 ms · 2026-05-15T11:00:54.205689+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, R. (2020). The artificial inventor project. WIPO Magazine, December 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex%3A32018L0843

    AMLD5: Directive (EU) 2018/843 Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex%3A32018L0843

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1640/oj

    AMLD6: Directive (EU) 2024/1640 Mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1640/oj

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bartal, I. B. A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427-1430. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210789

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1210789 2011

  5. [5]

    Bayern, S. (2016). The implications of modern business-entity law for the regulation of autonomous systems. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 93-112. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2758222

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Baeyaert, J. (2025). Beyond personhood: The evolution of legal personhood and its implications for AI recognition. Technology and Regulation, 355–386. https://doi.org/10.71265/ssvg8a97

    work page doi:10.71265/ssvg8a97 2025

  7. [7]

    Science , publisher=

    Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., Yao, A., Song, D., Abbeel, P., Darrell, T., ... & Mindermann, S. (2024). Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress. Science, 384(6698), 842-845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn0117

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adn0117 2024

  8. [8]

    Bertolini, A. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability. Study for European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, PE 621.926

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Birch, J. (2017). Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience, 2(16), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1200

    work page doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1200 2017

  10. [10]

    K., & Clayton, N

    Birch, J., Schnell, A. K., & Clayton, N. S. (2020). Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 789-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007 2020

  11. [11]

    Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press

    work page 1987

  13. [13]

    TowardtrustworthyAI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims,

    Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., ... & Anderljung, M. (2020). Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07213

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    (2024) Die Magie der Gemeinschaft: Was uns mit Tieren und künstlichen Intelligenzen verbindet

    Brensing, K. (2024) Die Magie der Gemeinschaft: Was uns mit Tieren und künstlichen Intelligenzen verbindet. Berlin Verlag

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    J., Diamantis, M

    Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, for, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017- 9214-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10506-017- 2017

  16. [16]

    Bryson, J. J. (2010). Robots should be slaves. In Y. Wilks (Ed.), Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues (pp. 63-74). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.8.11bry

    work page doi:10.1075/nlp.8.11bry 2010

  17. [17]

    A., & Buckner, C

    Bugnyar, T., Reber, S. A., & Buckner, C. (2016). Ravens attribute visual access to unseen competitors. Nature Communications, 7(1), 10506. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10506

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms10506 2016

  18. [18]

    C., & Cammaerts, R

    Cammaerts, M. C., & Cammaerts, R. (2015). Are ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) capable of self recognition? Journal of Science, 5(7), 521-532

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1993

  20. [20]

    Cave, S., & ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. S. (2019). Bridging near-and long-term concerns about AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(1), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-018-0003-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-018-0003-2 2019

  21. [21]

    Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    Hadfield, and Markus Anderljung

    Chan, A., Wei, K., Huang, S., Rajkumar, N., Perrier, E., Lazar, S., ... & Anderljung, M. (2025). Infrastructure for AI agents. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10114

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Chesterman, S. (2021). We, the robots? Regulating artificial intelligence and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Chinese AI Ethics Norms (2021) National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Expert Committee. (2021). Ethical Norms for New Generation Artificial Intelligence. Ministry of Science and Technology, Beijing

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Corporate Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 116-283, div. F, 134 Stat. 4547 (2021) (effective January 1, 2024)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Dafoe, A. (2018). AI governance: A research agenda. Governance of AI Program, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, 1-32. 25

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Dafoe, A., Bachrach, Y., Hadfield, G., Horvitz, E., Larson, K., & Graepel, T. (2021). Cooperative AI: Machines must learn to find common ground. Nature, 593(7857), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01170-0

    work page doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01170-0 2021

  28. [28]

    Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9403-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9403-3 2016

  29. [29]

    Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company

    work page 1991

  30. [30]

    (2000, February 2)

    European Commission. (2000, February 2). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle (COM/2000/0001 final; CELEX: 52000DC0001). EUR-Lex

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    European Parliament, Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)), P8_TA(2017)0051

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    European Union. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    European Union. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1640 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). https://eur- lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1640/oj

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Levels of autonomy for ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12469, 2025

    Feng, K. J., McDonald, D. W., & Zhang, A. X. (2025). Levels of autonomy for AI Agents. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12469

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1997). Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In J. P. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent Agents III Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (pp. 21-35). Springer

    work page 1997

  38. [38]

    Gruetzemacher, R., & Whittlestone, J. (2022). The Transformative Potential of Artificial Intelligence. Futures, 135, 102884. Also available as arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00747

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Gruetzemacher, R., Chan, A., Frazier, K., Manning, C., Los, Š., Fox, J., & Kilian, K. (2023). An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14455

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot rights. MIT Press

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Hadfield, G. K. & Koh, A. (2025). An Economy of AI Agents. NBER Handbook on the Economics of Transformative AI. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01063

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2000). The essential role of organizational law. Yale LJ, 110, 387. https://ssrn.com/abstract=229956

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    and Coyle, D

    Heim, L., Sastry, G., Belfield, H., Anderljung, M., Brundage, M., Hazell, J., O'Keefe, C., Hadfield, G. K., Ngo, R., Pilz, K., Gor, G., Bluemke, E., Shoker, S., Egan, J., Trager, R. F., Avin, S., Weller, A., Bengio, Y., & Coyle, D. (2024). Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08797

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    & Bengio, Y

    Hendrycks, D., Song, D., Szegedy, C., Lee, H., Gal, Y., Brynjolfsson, E., ... & Bengio, Y. (2025). A Definition of AGI. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Hildt, E. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Does consciousness matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01535

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01535 2019

  46. [46]

    Honoré, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence (pp. 107-147). Oxford University Press

    work page 1961

  47. [47]

    Responsible AI for All: Adopting the Strategy for Inclusive Growth, Social Empowerment & Environmental Sustainability

    India's NITI Aayog (2021). Responsible AI for All: Adopting the Strategy for Inclusive Growth, Social Empowerment & Environmental Sustainability. Government of India

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    ISACA. (2019). COBIT 2019 Framework: Governance and Management Objectives. Information Systems Audit and Control Association

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Jaworska, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (2014). The grounds of moral status. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    International Atomic Energy Agency

    Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., & Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash: High‐frequency trading in an electronic market. The Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12498

    work page doi:10.1111/jofi.12498 2017

  51. [51]

    Kolt, N. (2025). Governing AI agents. Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 101 (forthcoming). arXiv:2501.07913

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Kurki, V. A. J. (2019). A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    LoPucki, L. M. (2017). Algorithmic entities. Wash. UL Rev., 95, 887. 26

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Z., Vezhnevets, A

    Leibo, J. Z., Vezhnevets, A. S., Cunningham, W. A., & Bileschi, S. M. (2025). A pragmatic view of AI personhood. arXiv:2510.26396

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004- 3422-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-004- 2004

  56. [56]

    North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1990

  57. [57]

    Novelli, C. (2023). Legal personhood for the integration of AI systems in the social context: A study hypothesis. AI and Society, 38, 1347–1359

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560–1563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1133755 2006

  59. [59]

    O'Keefe, C., Ramakrishnan, K., Tay, J., & Winter, C. (2025). Law-Following AI: Designing AI Agents to Obey Human Laws. Fordham Law Review Vol. 94, 57-129. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5242643

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5242643 2025

  60. [60]

    Okuno M. J. and Okuno H. G. (2025). Modular Legal Personhood for AI Use Cases. IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2025, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/ISTAS65609.2025.11269607, SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5478606

    work page doi:10.1109/istas65609.2025.11269607 2025

  61. [61]

    L., & Talbot-Jones, J

    O'Donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107

    work page doi:10.5751/es-09854-230107 2018

  62. [62]

    OECD. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Publishing

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    J., & Barron, A

    Perry, C. J., & Barron, A. B. (2013). Honey bees selectively avoid difficult choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(47), 19155-19159. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314571110

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1314571110 2013

  64. [64]

    Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press

    work page 1986

  65. [65]

    K., Boeckle, M., Rivera, M., Clayton, N

    Schnell, A. K., Boeckle, M., Rivera, M., Clayton, N. S., & Hanlon, R. T. (2021). Cuttlefish exert self- control in a delay of gratification task. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1946), 20203161. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.3161

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.3161 2021

  66. [66]

    Schuett, J., Anderljung, M., Carlier, A., Koessler, L., & Garfinkel, B. (2024). From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI. In P. Hacker, A. Engel, S. Hammer & B. Mittelstadt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on the Foundations and Regulation of Generative AI. Oxford University Press. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07300

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005756 1980

  68. [68]

    Sebo, J. (2022). Saving animals, saving ourselves: Why animals matter for pandemics, climate change, and other catastrophes. Oxford University Press

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Solum, L. B. (1992). Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 70, 1231-1287

    work page 1992

  70. [70]

    Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x 2007

  71. [71]

    Teubner, G. (2018). Digital personhood? The status of autonomous software agents in private law. Ancilla Iuris, 2018, 107-149. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3177096

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3177096 2018

  72. [72]

    Turner, J. (2019). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Palgrave Macmillan

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    UK Supreme Court. (2023). Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO Publishing

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence. Washington Law Review, 89, 117-150. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/6/

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6 2015