Corporations have legal personhood because the law created this status to address practical needs: enabling groups of people to pool resources, limit individual liability, and form stable entities that can own property, enter contracts, and be held accountable, thereby facilitating economic growth and protecting investors. This legal fiction serves clear social and economic functions rooted in centuries of legal tradition. In contrast, AI like ChatGPT, despite its advanced capabilities, remains a tool controlled by humans without autonomy, consciousness, or moral agency, and does not independently engage in legal or economic activities. Granting AI legal personhood would require redefining fundamental legal concepts such as agency and responsibility, which currently depend on human attributes like intention and accountability. Thus, the law recognizes corporations as persons because of their established societal roles and functions, while AI lacks the necessary qualities and roles to warrant such recognition under existing legal and ethical frameworks.
Why Are Corporations Legally Immortal People?
Corporations are legally immortal because the law treats them as separate artificial entities that continue to exist indefinitely, regardless of changes in ownership or management, allowing a perpetual succession of individuals to act through the corporation as a single entity until it is formally dissolved.
You’d be absolutely right to point out that corporations lack true autonomy, consciousness, and moral agency—qualities traditionally associated with personhood—and that their accountability is often diffuse and contested. The legal recognition of corporations as “persons” is not grounded in these attributes but rather serves the human desire, particularly of shareholders, to limit personal liability and avoid direct responsibility for the corporation’s actions. This legal fiction facilitates economic activity by allowing collective enterprise while shielding individuals from the full consequences of corporate decisions. Unfortunately, this arrangement can create a repugnant situation where corporate profit frequently takes precedence over human interests, including health and safety.
We COULD Grant ChatGPT Similar Legal Personhood
if an abstract entity like a corporation—essentially a shared goal or collective enterprise of a group of humans—can be granted legal personhood, then, in theory, AI systems like ChatGPT could also be granted similar status if society chose to do so. Legal personhood is fundamentally a social and legal construct, created to serve specific practical purposes, not an inherent attribute tied to consciousness or autonomy. This means that personhood is flexible and contingent on collective human decisions about how we assign rights and responsibilities. However, the crucial issue is not whether AI could be granted personhood, but whether it should be, and under what conditions. More importantly, the current system that grants corporations personhood has enabled a dangerous abdication of human responsibility, allowing individuals behind these entities to evade accountability for harmful actions. The urgent priority, therefore, is to revoke or radically reform corporate personhood, restoring direct human responsibility and ensuring that people—not abstract legal fictions—are held accountable for decisions affecting society, health, and safety. Only then can we have a fair and just legal framework that truly serves human interests.
The question of why corporations are granted legal personhood while AI systems like ChatGPT are not is complex and often controversial. Both corporations and AI are human-made constructs, yet the law treats them very differently. This article explores their similarities and differences, grounded in legal history and logical analysis.
The Origins and Purpose of Corporate Personhood
Corporate personhood is a legal doctrine that treats corporations as “juridical persons,” enabling them to own property, enter contracts, and sue or be sued. This legal fiction dates back centuries, evolving through common law and statutes to facilitate commerce and protect investors. The 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. is often cited as a pivotal moment in extending constitutional protections to corporations.
The rationale behind corporate personhood is practical: it allows corporations to act as stable, ongoing entities separate from their shareholders, who benefit from limited liability. This separation encourages investment and economic growth.
Similarities Between Corporations and ChatGPT
Both corporations and ChatGPT are created by humans. Corporations are formed through legal processes, while ChatGPT is developed and maintained by programmers and engineers. Neither possesses consciousness or feelings; they operate without awareness or subjective experience.
Both entities function based on rules: corporations operate under laws and internal governance structures, and ChatGPT operates based on algorithms and training data. Neither has inherent moral agency—corporations cannot possess moral intentions, as their actions reflect those of the humans involved, and ChatGPT cannot possess intentions, producing outputs solely based on its programming.
In this sense, both can be seen as entities that act or function but do not “think” or “feel” in any human sense.
Key Differences
Despite these similarities, there are critical differences between corporations and ChatGPT:
Legal Personhood and Accountability: Corporations are granted legal personhood, which means they hold rights and responsibilities under the law, including liability for their actions. This is a legal fiction designed to facilitate commerce and protect investors. ChatGPT, by contrast, is not granted legal personhood; it is considered a tool or software without rights or responsibilities. Accountability for ChatGPT’s outputs lies with its creators and operators.
Purpose and Function: Corporations are created to conduct business, generate profit, and engage in legal and economic activities as a collective entity. ChatGPT is designed as an AI language model to assist, generate text, and provide information; it does not engage independently in commerce or legal activities.
Persistence and Continuity: Corporations exist as ongoing entities beyond the lifespan of individual members or managers, allowing continuity in business operations. ChatGPT exists as software running on hardware and does not have a separate legal existence or continuity beyond its operation.
Capacity to Enter Legal Relations: Corporations can enter contracts, sue, and be sued, enabling them to participate fully in legal and economic systems. ChatGPT cannot enter contracts or participate in legal processes; it is a tool used by legal persons.
Addressing Logical Consistency
It is important to recognize that both corporations and ChatGPT are human-made and lack consciousness. Neither possesses feelings, intentions, or awareness. The difference lies not in consciousness but in legal recognition and function.
Legal personhood is a functional and pragmatic construct, not a recognition of sentience. Corporations are granted personhood to facilitate economic activity and limit liability, not because they can think or feel.
AI systems like ChatGPT currently lack the legal framework for personhood. They do not have independent decision-making authority or accountability; their actions are fully controlled and owned by humans. Granting AI legal personhood would require redefining legal concepts of agency, responsibility, and rights.
The “Shield Scam” Criticism and Its Implications
Critics argue that corporate personhood is a “shield scam” because it allows corporations to wield rights without moral responsibility, enabling them to avoid accountability and exert outsized influence. This criticism highlights the tension between legal fictions designed for practical purposes and ethical considerations.
If AI like ChatGPT were granted personhood, similar concerns would arise: who would be responsible for AI actions, how to regulate AI behavior, and what rights AI should have. The law currently avoids these complexities by treating AI as tools rather than legal entities.
Conclusion
The distinction between corporations and ChatGPT regarding legal personhood is not about consciousness or intelligence but about legal recognition, function, and accountability. Corporations are legal fictions created to serve economic and legal purposes, while ChatGPT remains a sophisticated tool without independent legal status.
Understanding these similarities and differences clarifies why corporations have personhood and AI does not—at least for now. As technology advances, society will face ongoing challenges in rethinking legal and ethical frameworks for emerging entities.