The way your comment was phrased made it seem, to me, like you were rebutting what I was saying and that regular human things are all irrelevant for whether or

The way your comment was phrased made it seem, to me, like you were rebutting what I was saying and that regular human things are all irrelevant for whether or not something is a person. There is one other way I have figured out to read your comment. Which is that it doesn't matter how software or a brain functions since it's only the action of the outcome that matters. But this is not really a relevant statement regardless of whether or not you agree with it, because the article is about a lawsuit and liability. A group of people, acting as a company, is suing other groups of people as companies. And software is not a person, and can't be held liable. So for that to be the case, the software would need to be made into a person, or equivalent. The fact that software and brains are or are not similar is irrelevant, because software is not a person and cannot be held liable.