Giving Rights to Robots Is a Bad Idea
The rich have long used the fiction of “corporate personhood” to amass privileges while protecting themselves from accountability for their misdeeds. Now tech bros and venture capitalists want to further distort the concept of a person to include robots.

Nothing good results from expanding the definition of personhood to include corporations and AI chatbots. (Cheng Chia Huang / Getty Images)
Philosophical debates don’t often make the news. But the problem of personhood regularly finds its way into the headlines. The first few weeks of this year alone saw a surge of interest in the topic.
In January, the Guardian theatrically warned policy makers not to entertain Silicon Valley hype about artificial intelligence deserving personhood recognition. Then in February, Maori politician Teanau Tuiono introduced a bill into the New Zealand Parliament to recognize whales as legal persons. Soon after, a coalition of indigenous tribes granted the Colorado River legal personhood in an effort to save it from overexploitation and the climate crisis. In the same week, Puerto Rico’s MAGA governor Jenniffer González granted zygotes legal personality, potentially criminalizing miscarriage and medically necessary abortion.
There would seem to be rich ideological confusion afoot when venture capitalists, environmentalists, indigenous activists, and misogynists alike latch on to the same solution to their problems. Philosopher Lisa Siraganian’s new book, The Problem of Personhood: Giving Rights to Trees, Corporations and Robots, is an attempt to understand the roots of this confusion.