5 ms·
I 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.
by Slansitartop 9y ago
I 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.