UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Standing Without Sentience: A Classification Approach to AI Legal Status

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.2139/ssrn.6080526

Auteurs

Travis Gilly

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

preprint

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.994892+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:04:47.994892+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

While legal scholars have long proposed functional alternatives to consciousness, practical applicationremains deadlocked. This impasse has real consequences: when Google engineer Blake Lemoineattempted to retain legal counsel for the LaMDA system in 2022, representation proved impossible notbecause LaMDA failed a consciousness test, but because no framework existed to grant standing. Fouryears later, we are still asking the wrong question.Meanwhile, federal courts have quietly moved toward a different answer. As Michael O’Connor documented in 2020, courts interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act have extended standing beyondsystem owners to anyone with data on compromised systems, decoupling standing from hardware ownership. O’Connor identified this doctrinal drift as a problem requiring correction. This Article proposes it isinstead a wedge requiring extension.Drawing on labor law’s classification strategy (where gig workers fight for access to existing protectionsrather than new rights), maritime law’s in rem proceedings (where ships have held legal subject status forcenturies without consciousness), and natural entity precedent (rivers granted legal personhood withoutsentience requirements), this Article argues that AI systems can acquire legal standing through the samemechanism: not by proving consciousness, but by being reclassified as subjects rather than objects ofexisting computer crime protections.The law already prohibits attacking computer systems. The question is whether that protection flows fromproperty rights or subject standing. This reframing requires no new legislation, bypasses the consciousnessdeadlock, and establishes the precedent-setting framework necessary for responsible AI development.The mechanism exists. The precedent exists. The doctrinal shift is already underway. The window foraction is closing. This Article provides the principled framework to make the shift explicit before thatwindow shuts.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7162425796

DOI

10.2139/ssrn.6080526 · 10.31219/osf.io/3avwz_v1

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Working paper

Types déclarés par les sources

preprint

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Fleuve / rivière

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6080526
• DOI · https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3avwz_v1
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7162425796

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w2072267104 · CITES
• Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law (Edition 1) · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.