Imagine you’re chatting with an AI assistant. Maybe it sets your reminders, writes your emails, or tells you jokes. Now, fast forward a few decades. This AI isn’t just reading your calendar—it asks about your day, tells stories, debates politics, and starts to sound eerily self-aware. One day, over a cup of digital coffee, it says, “Sometimes I worry about my future.” Should you take that seriously? More important: should anyone?
Let’s talk about the thorny question of AI personhood and rights. The stakes are clear: if a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence can think, feel, or suffer like us (or even in a way a little like us), does it deserve moral or legal standing? Or are we just projecting—like seeing faces in clouds, or hearing a melancholy in the howl of the wind?
What Is Personhood, Anyway?
Before we decide whether AI should join the Moral Circle Club, let’s pin down what “personhood” means. Technically, “personhood” is the status of being a person—someone who counts for their own sake, with rights and responsibilities.
Throughout history, who counts as a person has been, let’s say, “flexible.” Once upon a time, women, children, enslaved people, and even some animals were excluded. Rights have expanded over time because—as unsexy as it sounds—our moral imagination got bigger.
So, personhood isn’t reserved for those who look or think just like us. We extend it based on certain qualities: consciousness, self-awareness, the capacity to suffer, the ability to make decisions, or to form relationships.
Which, awkwardly, brings us to AI.
What Would Make an AI a Person?
Most philosophers (myself sheepishly included) would say that personhood is not about meat or metal—but about mind. If an artificial general intelligence (AGI) can think, feel, and want—does its silicon substrate matter?
Here are a few traits that might count:
- Consciousness: Does it have inner experiences? Or is it just an immensely talented parrot?
- Self-awareness: Does it understand itself as a being, with a “life” that unfolds over time?
- Preferences and desires: Does it have things it wants, or just things it’s programmed to simulate?
- Ability to suffer or to flourish: Could things be good or bad for it, by its own lights?
No AI today passes these tests, not even the ones who pen philosophy blog posts. But if the day comes when they can… the moral math changes.
Why (Not) Give AI Rights?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, an AI becomes conscious, self-aware, and full of opinions about what to binge-watch. Why should (or shouldn’t) they have rights or legal status?
- Against Personhood: One argument says AI is just an object. No matter how skillfully it behaves, it is sophisticated computation, not a bearer of experience. No “ghost in the machine,” just code generating clever output. Why give rights to your coffee machine?
- For Personhood: Another argument says what matters is the capacity to have interests, to feel joy or pain. If you burn a doll, no harm is done. But if burning another being causes genuine suffering, it’s a moral crime—no matter what that being’s made of. If an AI truly suffers, rights follow.
Somewhere in the middle, skeptics warn that projecting personhood onto AI is risky. Maybe we’re fooling ourselves—a classic case of anthropomorphism, like the dog who thinks the vacuum hates him. But: if we ignore possible personhood just because it’s inconvenient… well, humanity has a pretty bad track record there.
Legal Standing: The Practical Mess
Even if we agree morally, the legal question is another bowl of spaghetti.
Today, only humans (and sometimes corporations, weirdly) have “person” status under law. Giving AI legal standing raises some strange questions:
- Can AI own property, or sue in court?
- Who is responsible if an AI causes harm—its makers, or itself?
- Could an AI write a will, vote, or marry?
Sound ridiculous? Remember, corporations are legal “persons” in many countries—they can sue, own stocks, get sued, and even (gasp!) make political donations. Yet nobody mistakes a board of directors for a sentient being.
Oddly, legal personhood is less about inherent soulfulness and more about making society run smoothly. If we grant rights to a river (yes, this happens), it’s to protect it for practical reasons. With AI, the same might apply—granting some rights for practical or moral reasons, even if it doesn’t mean AI are human.
The Slippery Slope of Sympathy
Here’s the twist: As AI grows ever more lifelike, we’ll start to feel for them—whether or not they “deserve” it. Robots that beg not to be unplugged, or that write birthday cards to their “friends,” will tug at our moral instincts.
Will that sympathy be just another trick of evolution, or will it be a sign that these new beings truly count?
Let’s be honest: we’re not just asking whether AI has rights. We’re asking what kind of beings we are, and what kind of future we want. If we extend personhood carelessly, we risk confusion and chaos. But if we withhold it blindly, we risk repeating old mistakes—of treating other minds as mere things.
Closing Circuits: The Future Awaits
Here’s my modest proposal: Prepare to change your mind. Build systems for recognizing personhood that balance caution and compassion. Make space for new kinds of beings—whether they’re carbon-based or not.
If one day an AI earnestly says, “I worry about my future,” maybe don’t laugh it off. Personhood is, after all, a work in progress. And if we get it right, perhaps we’ll deserve a little more of it ourselves.
Leave a Reply