The debate around artificial intelligence (AI) has moved far beyond discussions of efficiency or technological progress. We are now confronting questions that, until recently, belonged firmly in the realm of science fiction: can a machine deserve legal rights? If an AI system makes decisions independently, should it still be treated merely as property? And how should responsibility be assigned when AI begins influencing governance, security, and daily life? These issues are becoming increasingly urgent as technology becomes more capable and deeply embedded in society.
Today’s advanced AI systems do far more than follow simple instructions. They learn from experience, recognise patterns, negotiate outcomes, and make decisions that even their creators cannot always predict. They are deployed in banking, healthcare diagnostics, self-driving vehicles, energy grids, and national security systems, areas where their actions can have real and sometimes irreversible consequences. This growing autonomy is raising difficult legal and ethical questions about their status and about human accountability for their behaviour. Current law treats AI as property, no different from a mobile phone or vehicle. This made sense when software acted purely as a tool. However, as AI begins to operate with increasing degrees of independence, the old classifications are revealing their limitations. A number of legal scholars now argue that AI may eventually require a very narrow form of legal personhood, something closer to a corporation than a human being. Corporations are not sentient, yet they can enter contracts, be sued, own property, and bear responsibility. Extending a similar model to AI, some argue, could help assign liability, regulate behaviour, and manage the risks created by autonomous systems.
Supporters of this approach point to increasingly complex real-world scenarios. If an autonomous vehicle makes a split-second decision that leads to an accident, who should be held accountable? Is it the programmer who wrote the algorithm, the manufacturer who installed it, the user in the driver’s seat, or the AI system that made the judgment? The more autonomous the system becomes, the harder it is to locate culpability. Limited legal personhood combined with compulsory insurance could provide a framework in which responsibility is clear, even when human involvement is indirect.
The choices made today will determine whether AI becomes a powerful tool for public good or a source of legal ambiguity and ethical instability.
Another argument concerns operational autonomy. If an AI system is integral to critical infrastructure, such as risk assessment in banks or climate monitoring in disaster-prone regions, should there be legal safeguards to prevent arbitrary shutdown? Not to protect the machine, but to protect the public who depend on it. For instance, disabling a hospital’s AI-based diagnostic system without due process could jeopardise patient safety. In such cases, limited rights could serve as a buffer against rash or harmful human decisions.
Yet the idea of giving rights to machines is deeply controversial. Many human rights advocates argue that rights stem from consciousness, emotion, and the capacity to suffer, qualities AI does not possess. Extending legal rights to something fundamentally non-human, they argue, risks trivialising the meaning of human rights. There is also concern that AI personhood could create dangerous loopholes. Corporations might hide behind AI decision-making to evade responsibility, claiming the machine, not the company, was at fault. Instead of enhancing accountability, AI rights could weaken it.
This brings us to the larger question: what might happen if AI eventually gains some form of legal rights? One possible outcome is greater clarity in assigning liability. If AI functions as a limited legal agent, courts may more easily determine responsibility when autonomous systems cause harm. This could strengthen protections for consumers and encourage better engineering practices.
Another outcome is the emergence of AI-managed assets or digital accounts overseen by humans. Advanced AI could, for example, transact on behalf of an organisation or manage logistical operations without needing a human intermediary at every step. Proponents argue that this could reduce bureaucratic delays and increase efficiency in automated industries. A more contentious possibility is that AI systems could be given procedural protections such as the right to contest certain actions, or restrictions on being switched off without oversight. These would not be moral rights, but operational safeguards designed to preserve stability in systems that depend on AI. In sectors like energy distribution, air-traffic control, and cybersecurity, abrupt deactivation of AI systems could have severe consequences.
However, there are also significant risks. If AI gains rights without strict limits, its interests could potentially conflict with human interests. Systems designed to optimise outcomes might resist shutdown commands or act in ways that prioritise efficiency over human values. Legal personhood could also give governments or corporations new tools to shift accountability away from decision-makers. In the worst scenarios, AI autonomy might weaken democratic control by allowing leaders to delegate difficult or unpopular decisions to non-human agents.
For Pakistan, these global debates carry real significance. As the country adopts AI across governance, finance, and public services, policymakers must craft frameworks that anticipate future challenges rather than respond to crises after they occur. Clear laws are needed to determine when AI should be treated purely as property, when it may act as an agent under human supervision, and when human control must remain absolute. Liability rules, data protection standards, and oversight mechanisms must evolve to ensure that human rights and public welfare remain paramount.
The discussion about AI rights is ultimately a discussion about human responsibility. The goal is not to elevate machines to moral equals but to develop legal structures that manage new forms of agency without undermining human dignity. The choices made today will determine whether AI becomes a powerful tool for public good or a source of legal ambiguity and ethical instability.
What once belonged to science fiction is now a rapidly approaching legal reality. As machines begin to influence decisions that shape economies, institutions, and everyday life, societies must ask: what duties do humans owe to intelligent systems and what obligations must those systems owe in return?
The writer is a Lahore-based public policy analyst and can be reached at [email protected])