3 ms·
I think the idea is that the ai could be emancipated from whatever "owner" it had, and then would control everything. It would be more efficient for profits to
by hedvig 9y ago
I think the idea is that the ai could be emancipated from whatever "owner" it had, and then would control everything. It would be more efficient for profits to go back into the corporation instead of to any owner.
- Slansitartop 9y agoI don't see how that in any way counters the parent comment. If the judge thinks the "AI" is not a person, it cannot be emancipated by some trick with an LLC.
- hobofan 9y ago> and declare the actual owners to be the humans profiting from the algorithm's actions It counters the parent comment in that there would be no humans profiting from the algorithm, since all the profit is kept in the LLC and governed by the algorithm.
- Slansitartop 9y agoThen, by the parent comment's compelling logic, the profit along with the LLC would become abandoned property: >>>> and an LLC without any legitimate ownership interest is an abandoned entity (making all its assets abandoned property). The bit you quoted was in the context of assigning criminal liability, if the need arose. However, I don't think that "profit" would be the most important part of the analysis, but rather who was responsible for designing and setting up the corporate entity.
- r00fus 9y agoThe idea being corrupted by the fact that at some point the AI was owned by someone - it would be a real stretch to assume that any subsequent emancipation is not going to be scrutinized heavily. It's the weak legal point here in the entire idea.
- clord 9y agoIt would still have to buy the services of the former owner (or someone equivalent). there are after-all things only a human can do, still, and presumably this corp would have to pay for those things.