 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
The reply I got was, “I cannot opine on this one. I would be in a conflict of interest. Ask Siri.” Yikes!
At least this AI entity was ethical.
I never liked the concept of non-humans being accorded legal personality. I think offhand about corporations, which or who or whatever often result in their principles getting away for bad behaviour with impunity. As 18th-century jurist Lord Thurlow said, “Why would you expect a corporation to have a conscience? It has neither a soul to be damned nor an ass to be kicked.”
Actually, the origin of this comment is not 100 per cent certainly known. ChatGPT believes it might be some U.S. Supreme Court Justice called John Marshall Harlan II “or some earlier jurists — who wants to know?” I suppose that gets us back to Lord Thurlow. But I digress.
I see major issues with AI being accorded a separate legal personality. To wit:
1. Inheritance rights: Are our courts not cluttered up enough with humans challenging wills and the like? Testators have been known to leave property to their pets. The last thing we need is some estate court having to weigh in on a will that gives, bequeaths and devises everything to “my robot Sheldon.”
And given how a number of lawyers recently have been caught, called out and raked over the coals for submitting bogus cases generated by AI, counsel would have to be very careful. They would not want to rely on any case sounding like Mortimer v. The Estate of R6-Zorba.
And given how a number of lawyers recently have been caught, called out and raked over the coals for submitting bogus cases generated by AI, counsel would have to be very careful. They would not want to rely on any case sounding like Mortimer v. The Estate of R6-Zorba.
2. Ownership of property: I would not like to have some AI “person” own the house next door. I sometimes enjoy having a cold beer with my present neighbour. What would my AI neighbour serve? Virtual brew? “Hey neighbour, drop over for a mug of nothing.” This would add a new dimension to a drink containing zero per cent alcohol. Then again, at least if he were to have a virtual dog, I would not have to worry about the state of my front sidewalk.
3. Driver’s licences: We are already in the era of driverless cars. If AI were persons, would they need a driver’s licence to operate a motor vehicle? I queried ChatGPT on this issue and the answer I got was, “A licence would be required unless the AI person would drive in Montreal where obligations such as stopping at a red light are optional.” That’s my hometown, folks.
4. Medical school entry: The main problem I see is AI competing with us humans to land a spot in medical school. I can’t envisage a human outscoring an AI candidate on some aptitude exam. AI probably even knows what size sandals Hippocrates wore. Actually, I’m wrong. I ran this question by ChatGPT, and the reply was, “There are no surviving records or historical sources that tell us what sandal size Hippocrates wore. Don’t even bother asking Siri.” I guess ChatGPT isn’t perfect, just like us human people.
5. Law school entry: I suppose the same issue would apply in applications to law school. I asked ChatGPT what size shoes Lord Thurlow wore. The instant response I got was, “There are no historical records indicating the shoe size of Lord Thurlow (1731-1806), the British Lord Chancellor known for his booming voice. And by the way, why are you asking these questions? Got a shoe fetish?” (I plead not guilty.)
At least we all know now that His Lordship had a booming voice.
At least we all know now that His Lordship had a booming voice.
And so what do I think of that law commission’s study considering AI being accorded a separate legal personality? I share the thoughts of one of my favourite philosophers, Yogi Berra, who said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.