Legally, should humanoid robots be defined as "property" or "legal persons"?

Okay, this is a very interesting question, and it's no longer science fiction; it's a topic being seriously discussed by legal and tech communities. Let's talk about it in plain language.

Are Robots Considered "Things" or "Persons"? A Major Legal Challenge

Your question is essentially asking: should a highly intelligent humanoid robot be legally considered a piece of property (like your car or computer) or a legal person (like a company)?

These two perspectives represent two completely different lines of thought.

1. As "Property": The Most Direct and Realistic Approach

This is the current legal status in all countries. Simply put, a robot is an "object," a commodity.

• Whoever buys it, owns it. You buy a robot, and it becomes your private property.
• If it causes trouble, the owner is responsible. This is like your dog biting someone, and you have to pay compensation; or your car rolling down a slope and hitting someone's wall, and you're responsible for repairs. If your robot butler messes something up and causes damage, you, as the owner, bear the responsibility.
• Advantage: The biggest benefit of this model is its simplicity and clarity. Our existing legal system (primarily property law) can fully handle these matters without major modifications. Who owns, who controls, who is responsible—it's all clear at a glance.

You can imagine it as a super-powerful iPhone that can walk and talk on its own. No matter how intelligent it is, legally, it's still a "thing."

2. As a "Legal Person": Preparing for the Future

This idea is quite advanced. First, let's explain what a "legal person" is.

A "legal person" does not refer to a real human being (legally called a "natural person"); it is a virtual legal entity. The most typical example is a company. For instance, "Tencent Company" can sign contracts, take out bank loans, sue others, or be sued in court, but "Tencent Company" itself is not a living person; it's a concept created by law to facilitate business activities.

So, why consider robots as something similar to a "legal person"?

• Issue of liability attribution. This is the core consideration. Imagine a robot with highly autonomous artificial intelligence. Its decisions are not orders from its owner, nor are they bugs in the manufacturer's program; they are the result of its own "learning" and "decision-making." If it causes significant damage due to such a decision, and the owner is made to compensate, the owner would feel wronged ("I didn't tell it to do that!"); if the manufacturer is made to compensate, the manufacturer would also feel wronged ("My program has no issues!").
• Solution: If this robot is given a status similar to a "legal person" (some call it "electronic personhood"), then it could have its own independent assets and liability capacity. For example, the law could mandate that such robots must register a sum of money or purchase high-value insurance before "starting work." If it causes trouble, its own money or insurance would be used for compensation.
• Advantage: This approach can isolate the risks brought by the robot's autonomous actions, preventing infinite traceability to the owner or manufacturer, which would be beneficial for the industry's development. Otherwise, who would dare to buy or build highly intelligent robots?

Conclusion: Currently "Property," Future May Be a "Third Kind of Existence"

So, to summarize:

1. Currently: Without a doubt, humanoid robots are property. The robot you buy is your possession, no different from your car.
2. Future: As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly autonomous, the simple definition of "property" might not be sufficient. However, directly defining it as a "legal person" like a company is also too premature, as it lacks true consciousness and rights.

The most likely outcome is that the law will create a new, independent legal status for such advanced AI robots. It would be neither "person" nor "thing," but a "third kind of existence" in between. This new identity would have specific laws governing its rights (e.g., the right to own specific property) and obligations (e.g., mechanisms for compensation after causing damage).

Legal development always lags behind technological advancement. What we now consider science fiction might become a real issue that legislators must face in the next ten or twenty years.