Abstract This article advances an explanatory model of the academic and policy debate on artificial intelligence (AI) systems as legal persons over time. It argues that the scientific and regulatory debate on such systems as legal persons undergoes periods of relative stability, interrupted by rapid paradigm shifts. Three interrelated factors primarily influence these oscillations: (1) competing theories of legal personhood (clustered versus singularist); (2) the capability, embodiment, and commercial reach of AI technology; and (3) AI's integration within socio‐digital institutions. Two additional forces modulate the depth and durability of any shift: (4) the overlap and internal consistency of cross‑domain legal regimes (data protection, agency, liability, and cybersecurity); and (5) the body of judicial precedents (or their scarcity) on extending personhood. Specific convergences of these factors create pressure for status reconsideration; absent them, equilibrium returns. The article concludes by assessing the short‐, mid‐, and long‑term prospects, highlighting conditional pathways rather than deterministic trajectories.
Novelli et al. (2025) studied this question.