NEW PROPOSED PERSONALITY MODEL FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: INTEGRATED PERSONALITY

Abstract

The classification of artificial intelligence (AI) systems is a multifaceted process, encompassing a wide range of criteria. Among these classifications, the categorisation based on capabilities, autonomous movement capacity, and cognitive capacity holds particular significance in the context of discussions concerning the recognition of personality in AI. Systems that embody the characteristics of ‘Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)’ and ‘Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)’ in the classification based on capabilities, ‘Fully Autonomous AI (FAA)’ in the classification based on autonomous movement capacity, and ‘Self-Aware Systems (SAS)’ in the classification based on cognitive capacity should be recognised as Integrated Personality (InPer). The AI system that has been granted InPer will be designated InPerAI. It is important to note that InPerAI is not an independent personality, but must be integrated into a ‘Main Person (MaPer)’, which is a natural person or legal entity. InPerAI may be authorised by MaPer to perform certain tasks and operations. Based on this authorisation, the provisions regarding direct representation authority will apply to the transactions made by the InPerAI. Consequently, the rights and obligations acquired by InPerAI shall belong to MaPer. In terms of InPerAI’s tort liability, it is argued that an objective duty of care, akin to the 'liability of owners of dangerous animals', should be established. Furthermore, it is contended that MaPer should be able to exonerate itself from liability by demonstrating that it has taken every precaution or that the damage is attributable to the actions of other parties. In addition, it is posited that criminal liability for offences committed by InPerAI should also be attributed to MaPer. However, MaPer should be fully or partially absolved of criminal liability if he/she/it can demonstrate that, despite having taken every precaution, it could not prevent the commission of the offence, or that the offence was caused by the production or responsibility of another person. In the event that the problem is attributed to production, the manufacturer should also be held criminally liable.