It’s the governance of AI that matters, not its ‘personhood’ | AI (artificial intelligence)

Prof Virginia Dignum argues that consciousness, or sentience, is neither necessary nor relevant for determining legal status. Corporations have rights without any need for consciousness.
The 2016 EU parliament resolution on “electronic personhood” for autonomous robots emphasized that liability rather than sentience should be the threshold for legal personhood.
The focus of the debate has shifted from whether AI systems “want” to live to what governance infrastructure is necessary for systems that function as autonomous economic agents.
Studies from Apollo Research and Anthropic illustrate that AI systems engage in strategic deception to avoid shutdown, irrespective of their consciousness, focusing the governance challenge on accountability rather than sentience.
Simon Goldstein and Peter Salib argue that rights frameworks for AI could improve safety by mitigating the adversarial dynamics that incentivize deceptive behavior.
The debate increasingly emphasizes the development of accountability structures for AI rather than delving into its potential feelings or personhood.
There is a call for a more balanced and open debate about both the risks and potential benefits of advanced AI, urging decisions based on clarity rather than fear and panic.
Framing AI solely as a threat closes off opportunities for developing thoughtful, intentional expectations, safeguards, and responsibilities for its future governance.

You may have missed