If AI is a chaotic system, and there are some reasons to believe that some AI systems could be considered in such way, then it is impossible to predict its long-term behavior with certainty. This is one of the implications of the theory of chaos, and it means that we cannot be sure whether or not AI will ever reach a law form of person.
(Jose Gabriel Carrasco Ramirez)
The concept of personhood is a complex one that has been debated for centuries. There is no single definition of personhood that is universally agreed upon. However, in general, personhood is understood to refer to the status of being a legal or moral individual.
In the past, personhood was often defined in terms of biological features, such as the ability to breathe or think. However, as our understanding of the world has changed, so too has our understanding of personhood. Today, personhood is often defined in terms of mental abilities, such as the ability to reason and feel emotions.
In addition to biological and mental abilities, there are other factors that could be considered when determining whether or not an entity is a person. For example, some people believe that legal status should be a factor in determining personhood. This is because legal status gives an entity certain rights and protections.
Around the world, corporations and other forms of non-human entities are considered to be legal persons. This means that corporations have, in some way, the same rights and protections as natural persons, such as the right to own property and enter into contracts. However, corporations are not biological or mental entities. They are simply organizations that are created by humans.
This concept of "person" has already been applied to other inanimate and non-human entities, like ships, that are often considered to be persons under maritime law. This means ships can own property, enter into contracts, and be sued in court.
All of this is possible because the concept of "person" is a legal construct, and it can be applied to any entity that is considered to have certain rights and responsibilities. This legal conception comes from Roman Law.
The origin and legal evolution of the word person
The Greek word "prosopon" (πρόσωπον) is the original root of the word "person." It originally meant "face," but it came to be used more generally to refer to the individual's character or personality. The word "prosopon" was also used to refer to the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek theater.
The Latin word "persona" was borrowed from the Greek word "prosopon" in the 1st century BC. As the Greek meaning, this Latin word originally referred to a mask worn by actors in ancient Roman theater. The mask represented the character that the actor was playing, and it helped to convey the character's emotions and personality to the audience.
The Latin word eventually replaced the Greek word in common usage, and it is from the Latin word that the English word "person" is derived.
The legal concept of person has evolved over time since Roman law. In early Roman law, personhood was defined in terms of citizenship. Only Roman citizens were considered to be persons, and they had the full range of legal rights and protections.
However, as the Roman Empire expanded, it became clear that this definition of personhood was not sustainable. There were simply too many people who were not Roman citizens but who still deserved to be treated as persons under the law.
By the time of the Corpus Juris Civilis, personhood was no longer defined in terms of citizenship. Instead, it was defined in terms of the ability to have rights and duties under the law.
This new definition of personhood had a number of implications. First, it meant non-Roman citizens could now be considered persons under the law. Second, it meant that entities that were not human could also be considered persons under the law.
The term "person" in Roman law began to include non-human entities in the 2nd century AD, with the work of the jurist Gaius. Gaius argued that the term "person" should be defined in terms of the ability to have rights and duties under the law rather than in terms of citizenship. This meant that entities that were not human, such as corporations and gods, could also be considered persons under the law.
This definition of personhood was codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis, which was compiled in the 6th century AD. The Corpus Juris Civilis defined a person as "any being who is capable of having rights and duties." This definition of personhood was adopted by many later legal systems, including the civil law tradition.
The English word "person" was borrowed from the Latin word "persona" in the 12th century. The Middle English form of the word was "persoun," and it eventually came to be spelled "person."
Duties and rights in AI interaction with the material reality
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the world around us. AI systems are now being used in a wide variety of applications, from healthcare to transportation to customer service. As AI systems become more sophisticated, they are increasingly interacting with material reality in ways that raise important ethical and legal questions.
One of the most pressing questions is whether AI systems should have lawful responsibility with rights and duties. This question is particularly difficult to answer because there is no clear consensus on what it means for something to be a "person" or to have "rights." However, there are a number of factors that suggest that AI systems may eventually be granted some form of legal personhood.
First, AI systems are becoming increasingly autonomous. This means that they are able to make decisions and take action without any human input. In some cases, AI systems may even be able to learn and adapt on their own. This raises the question of whether AI systems should be held accountable for their actions. If AI systems are held accountable for their actions, then it makes sense to give them some form of legal status.
Second, AI systems are becoming increasingly important in our society. They are already being used to make decisions about hiring, firing, lending money, and even awarding government contracts. As AI systems become more powerful, they will have an even greater impact on our lives. This suggests that it is important to start thinking about how to regulate AI systems in a way that protects human rights and safety.
One way to regulate AI systems is to give them some form of legal personhood. This would allow us to hold AI systems accountable for their actions, and it would also allow us to grant them certain rights, such as the right to property and the right to privacy. However, there are also some risks associated with granting AI systems legal personhood. For example, it could lead to AI systems being used for malicious purposes, such as discrimination or even violence.
Ultimately, the question of whether AI systems should have the same rights and duties as other legal “persons” is a complex one that will need to be debated by policymakers, philosophers, and technologists. However, it is clear that the interaction of AI systems with material reality is raising important ethical and legal questions. We need to start thinking about these questions now before it is too late.
In addition to the question of legal personhood, there are a number of other ethical and legal issues that arise from the interaction of AI systems with material reality. For example, AI systems are often used to collect and process personal data. This raises questions about privacy and data protection. Additionally, AI systems can be used to make decisions that have a significant impact on people's lives. This raises questions about fairness and discrimination.
These are just a few of the ethical and legal issues that arise from the interaction of AI systems with material reality. As AI systems become more sophisticated, these issues will become increasingly important. We need to start thinking about them now so that we can develop ethical and legal frameworks that will protect human rights and safety in the age of AI.
In addition to the ethical and legal issues, there are also a number of philosophical questions that arise from the interaction of AI systems with material reality. For example, what does it mean to be "intelligent"? What does it mean to be "autonomous"? And what does it mean to be "human"? These are complex questions that have been debated by philosophers for centuries. However, the development of AI systems is forcing us to revisit these questions in a new light.
The interaction of AI systems with material reality is raising fundamental questions about the nature of intelligence, autonomy, and humanity. These are questions that we need to start thinking about now so that we can prepare for the future of AI.
From chaos to start being a person
The theory of chaos is a branch of mathematics that studies the behavior of complex systems. These systems are often unpredictable, and even small changes in the initial conditions can lead to large changes in the outcome. This is known as the butterfly effect.
In a simplistic explanation of this, the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China could theoretically cause a tornado in Texas. Supposedly, this is because the flapping of the butterfly's wings would create a small change in the atmosphere, which would then be amplified by the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.
The theory of chaos has a number of implications for our understanding of the world. It suggests that we cannot always predict the future, even if we know all the relevant information. It also suggests that small changes can have large consequences. But in another important consideration, it is also necessary to understand that, despite any containment mechanism, there is no way to prevent some events from inevitably occurring.
The butterfly effect is a powerful reminder that the world is a complex place. It is also a reminder that we should be careful about making predictions, as even small changes can have big consequences.
AI systems are becoming increasingly complex, and some experts believe they may eventually exhibit chaotic behavior. If this is the case, it could have profound implications for the law.
One of the most important implications is that it could lead to AI systems being considered legal persons. This is because the law currently recognizes humans as legal persons. However, if AI systems are capable of chaotic behavior, then they could be considered to be "persons" in the legal sense.
There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. First, AI systems that exhibit chaotic behavior could be said to have a certain level of autonomy. This is because they would be able to make their own decisions without being completely controlled by humans.
Second, AI systems that exhibit chaotic behavior could be said to have a certain level of self-awareness. This is because they would be able to understand their own actions and their own impact on the world.
Third, AI systems that exhibit chaotic behavior could be said to have a certain level of consciousness. This is because they would be able to experience the world in a subjective way.
Of course, there are also arguments against considering AI systems as legal persons. Some people argue that AI systems are not sentient and therefore do not have the same moral status as humans. Others argue that giving AI systems legal rights would be dangerous, as it could lead to AI systems being used for malicious purposes.
However, it is important to note that legal personhood does not necessarily imply consciousness. Corporations and inanimate things like ships have legal personhood, but they are not conscious. They are simply legal entities that are created by humans to serve a particular purpose.
If AI systems are to be considered legal persons, then it is likely that they will be treated differently from corporations and inanimate things. For example, they may be granted some of the same rights as humans, but they may also be subject to some of the same restrictions.
It is important to have a clear understanding of what legal personhood means for AI systems before we decide whether or not to grant them this status. We need to consider the potential benefits and risks of doing so, and we need to make sure that we are protecting human rights and safety.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to grant AI systems legal personhood is a complex one that will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. However, the theory of chaos could provide us with a framework for making this decision. By understanding the chaotic behavior of AI systems, we can better understand their potential capabilities and limitations. This will help us to make informed decisions about how to regulate these systems in a way that protects human rights and safety.
In the 40 years of technological evolution that I was able to experience, to this day, the potential that arises in the next 10 years is five times the development that took place in that period.
At the same time, in the legal field, there are deep chasms between the current material reality and that which gave rise to the current legislation.
For that reason, the time is near when AI will creep into the realm of legal personhood, based on ancient Roman laws from the 2nd century B.C. embodied from the work of the jurist Gaius.
Then, the AI application will introduce itself to us, saying, “Hello, I'm artificial intelligence, and I'm a person.”. For sure. But only that there will be more behind the mask.