Associated Preprint DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18339379 Abstract: This dataset focuses on the cutting-edge topic of "Should artificial intelligence have legal personality?" and comprehensively presents a real-world live debate (conducted in Chinese) along with its in-depth analytical outcomes. It serves as an empirical validation carrier for the author’s original three core theories: Trait Lock-in Theory, Prediction-Regulation Dual-Drive Game Theory (positive game), and Reverse Game Theory. The dataset comprises three key components: 1. Original Live Debate Transcript (Chinese): This section fully records all offensive and defensive rounds of the debate conducted in Chinese between the two sides (the pro side advocating that AI should have legal personality, and the anti side opposing it), including core arguments, logical confrontations, and final review. The entire debate adheres to the core logic of the preprint—relying on the dynamic game loop of "predicting AI’s logical boundaries, regulating its strategic space, and transforming its attacks into supporting arguments"—to empirically demonstrate humans’ game advantage over AI within the framework of existing rules. At the conclusion of the debate, the AI was defeated after falling into logical confusion, such as circular definitions and double standards. This outcome directly corroborates the preprint’s core conclusion that "humans can achieve a necessary victory over AI within the framework of existing rules," providing critical practical evidence for the theoretical system. It constitutes the original Chinese practical material and factual support for the theoretical system. 2. Chinese Analytical Version: While retaining the core framework and viewpoints of the original Chinese debate, this version deconstructs the logic of each round of confrontation. It not only identifies logical flaws in both sides’ arguments (such as circular definitions, double standards, and category errors) but also synchronously interprets the practical application of the preprint’s theories. For example, it uses "Trait Lock-in Theory" to highlight AI’s inherent rigid flaws, such as "black-box rule application" and "lack of reverse transformation capability," and employs the "prediction-regulation" mechanism to sort out how humans lock AI’s argumentative boundaries and transform its core challenges, facilitating Chinese readers to connect theory with practice. 3. English Analytical Version: Optimized and restructured to adapt to English academic expression habits, this version integrates logical analysis of the preprint’s core theories while strictly adhering to the original Chinese debate context and the fundamental difference between "the infinite possibilities of life" and "the limited boundaries of tools." It forms a standardized English text suitable for international academic exchange and citation, providing empirical support for the cross-border dissemination of the theoretical system. The three components form a progressive relationship: "original Chinese practical material supported by theory → in-depth Chinese analysis linking theory and practice → standardized English academic text adapting to theory." The original transcript represents the practical implementation of the preprint’s theories; the Chinese analytical version achieves two-way deconstruction of "practical scenarios + theoretical logic"; and the English analytical version provides a standardized carrier for the international validation and citation of the theories. Together, they constitute an interdisciplinary research dataset with empirical, theoretical, and communicative value, echoing the preprint’s core proposition that "humans can proactively control human-AI games within the framework." This dataset is not merely a fascinating debate on AI legal personality, but a "living verification and implementation demonstration" of the preprint’s theories. It transforms abstract game theory into actionable offensive and defensive strategies through real-world scenarios, empirically proving the possibility of humans defeating AI within the rule framework, and providing a new theoretical perspective and practical reference for reconstructing human-AI relations in the age of artificial intelligence. Material Description & Citation Note: This dataset provides real-world human-AI debate materials, bilingual in-depth analyses, and theoretical validation conclusions on the topic of "AI legal personality." It fully retains the core logic, offensive-defensive context, and final review of the debate, and can be directly used as empirical support or research foundation for academic papers in fields such as AI legal regulation, human-AI game theory, and legal fictional subjects. Scholars in related fields are welcome to conduct extended research, paper writing, or interdisciplinary discussions based on this material. When citing, please simultaneously reference this working paper (10.5281/zenodo.18612686) and the associated preprint (DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18339379) to ensure the integrity and standardization of academic citations. For further academic exchange, collaboration, or inquiries about material usage details, please contact relike.zhou@outlook.com.
Relike Zhou (Wed,) studied this question.