從法人法人格到人工智能法人格？試想人工智能於法律體系中之定位

From Legal Personhood of Legal Person to Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence? Considering the Place of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal System

人類的法律制度係建基於人類之優先地位。然而，AI的發展將導致智能層級的重構。因此，從表面上看來，原則性、無條件性的「人類首要優越地位」，若是湊近一看，就不難察覺實際上法律世界對該大原則與無條件存有許多例外與限制，而更真實的採納反而是「大腦在各個器官中的首要地位」。因為有效組織社會秩序的工具，也就是法律，並不根據生物意義上人類物種之成員身分來進行實際層面之運作。相反地，在法律世界中，一個「人」實際上是由法律根據其「能力」來定義的。又人（personne），一詞源自於拉丁文（persona），意指人類於劇場中所戴的面具。因而，「人」和「人類」的概念尤於法律上仍然是截然不同的。事實上，奴隸、女性、外國人（野蠻人）、動物、大自然，以及私人和公共法律實體等幾個群體的法律歷史，都是依循該模式的演化：在法律上先「承認」其為「人」，接著再慢慢實現與其所相對應的權利和義務。這段歷史軌跡證明了法律人格是會變動的、納入理解之標準係一直在演進。本文以法律人格－尤以幾點公司法人格之簡析－作為最淺薄對於AI法人格於當前人類法秩序中相關地位之介紹；同時亦在探討人類於未來法秩序中的地位將如何在與Artificial General Intelligence（AGI）以上之存在時空中繼續演化下去。

The human legal system is indeed based on the of human speices. However, the development of AGI will lead to a reconfiguration of this hierarchy of intelligence. If we take a closer look at the apparently principled and unconditional“supremacy of man”, it is not difficult to realise that the legal world in fact has many exceptions to this principle and unconditionality, and that a more realistic adoption would be the‘primacy of the brain amongst the organs’. Because the instrument that effectively organises the legal order, that is, the law, does not operate on a practical level on the basis of membership of the human species in the biological sense. On the contrary, in the legal world, a‘person’is in fact defined by the law in terms of his or her“capacities”. The term“personne”, derived from the Latin word“persona”, refers to the mask worn by humans in the theatre. As a result, the concepts of‘person’and‘human being’remain distinct especially in law. Indeed, the legal histories of several groups - slaves, women, aliens (barbarians), animals, nature, as well as private and public legal entities - have followed this pattern of evolution: the legal“recognition”of the entity as a“person”, followed by the gradual realisation of the rights and obligations that correspond to that person. This historical trajectory proves that legal personhood is mutable. The criteria for inclusion have always been evolving. This article begins with a brief introduction to the status of AI personhood in the current human legal order, using legal personhood - and in particular, a brief analysis of corporate personhood - as a starting point; at the same time, it explores how the status of human beings in the future legal order will continue to evolve in the time and space of the existence of AGIs and beyond.
The human legal system is indeed based on the existence of the human species. However, the development of AGI is likely to bring about a reconfiguration of this hierarchy of intelligence. If we take a closer look at the apparently principled and unconditional“supremacy of the human”, it is not difficult to realise that the legal world in fact contains numerous exceptions to such absolutist claims, and that a more realistic formulation would be the primacy of cognitive capacity among human attributes. This is because the instrument that effectively organises the legal order - namely, the law - does not operate, on a practical level, on the basis of membership of the human species in the biological sense.
On the contrary, in the legal domain, a“person”is defined by law in terms of certain relevant capacities. The term“personne”, derived from the Latin word“persona”, originally referred to a theatrical mask through which a role was expressed, underscoring the representational nature of legal person. As a result, the concepts of“legal person”and“human being”remain conceptually distinct, particularly in law.
Indeed, the legal histories of several groups - including slaves, women, aliens (foreigners/barbarians), animals, (elements of) nature, and both private and public legal entities - have followed a similar evolutionary pattern: initial legal recognition as a subject, followed by the progressive attribution of rights and obligations.
This historical trajectory demonstrates that legal personhood is neither fixed nor biologically determined. The criteria for inclusion have continually evolved in response to social, economic, and technological change. This article therefore begins by examining the status of AI personhood within the current human legal order, using the concept of legal personhood, with particular attention to corporate personhood, as an analytical entry point. At the same time, it investigates how the legal status of human beings may itself be reconfigured within the temporal and spatial conditions shaped by the emergence and persistence of AGIs and in the legal orders that may follow.