Summary

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been exceptionally exponential in recent years. Instances already exist today where AI-based systems have caused harm to humans. In the view of the authors, it is legally difficult to attribute legal blame (for example, in terms of liability) to the manufacturer or user of the AI in situations where humans themselves no longer (fully) understand or control the operation of the AI. Arguing that AI nevertheless remains a product for which the manufacturer or user is liable creates gaps in our legal system (for example, through the concept of force majeure). Thus, the authors contend that we cannot limit ourselves to the question of who is liable for the consequences caused by AI, but must ask whether and when independent legal significance should be attributed to the actions of AI. The article analyses the arguments for and against granting legal personality to AI. However, it goes further than that. If AI were to be assigned the status of a person, what should that status be? Our current legal system, which separates people into two groups – natural and legal – may be facing a new challenge, as AI does not inherently fit into either category. Consequently, an additional question arises: does our civil law system require a reform, whereby a third, sui generis category of person – an electronic person – should be created alongside natural and legal persons, or can the aforementioned problems be resolved by other means?