The Legal Problem of the Term Intelligent Agent and the Legal Personality of the Robot

Abstract

This research examines the outcomes of advancements in artificial intelligence technologies and self-executing smart contracts, highlighting the emergence of the term "smart agent" from their programming and business applications due to similarities between robots and agents in contractual engagements. This similarity arises without full recognition of the associated legal implications and dimensions. The study clarifies that legal agency requires legal personality and capacity, attributes inherently absent in objects according to scholars of jurisprudence and law. Objects, including AI systems, lack the personality and legal capacity necessary to serve as agents legally. However, the public interest dictates recognizing the validity of such contracts. Thus, the study explores various legal trends, each aiming to validate these contracts in alignment with general legal principles yet differing in their approaches. Some consider these programs merely tools for transmitting human intention, maintaining that contracts are formed solely through the parties' intentions, despite the intelligence, decision-making capabilities, self-execution, and experiential learning these systems demonstrate through interaction with their environments. According to this view, user intention remains central. Others argue that the actions performed by these systems do not constitute a valid contract formation, disputing the legitimacy of the term "smart contracts," and viewing their role as strictly executional rather than contractual, with no legal barriers to automated contract execution. A third perspective proposes granting robots legal personality, sparking substantial jurisprudential debate, with proponents and opponents presenting various arguments. The study assesses these debates, concluding that granting legal personality could generate more complications than solutions, necessitating further maturation and research. The study ultimately recommends focusing research efforts on protecting users of AI technologies, given widespread agreement on the validity of these contracts and emphasizing the critical importance of addressing contractual liability arising from such contracts.