Comment by saghm
5 hours ago
I agree with the other top-level comment next to yours (at the time of writing): when we're willing to enforce consequences for them in the same way we would for people. If I violate laws, I can get put in jail, and then I (most likely) can't use any computers until I get out. To consider an AI a person, it needs to have legal liability in the same way a fleshy person does.
Being a legal person is not a logical prerequisite for being named as an inventor on that argument alone, because there's not a legal liability that stems from being named as an inventor.
(That's not to say AI should or should not be capable of being named as an inventor).
I'm aware. Being named as an inventor is a benefit we sometimes give to people, and the point the other comment was making (as I understood it) is that AI shouldn't be able to only take the good parts of being a person and skip over the potential downsides.