The article is devoted to the study of one of the most pressing problems of modern law - the possibility of endowing artificial intelligence with legal personality. In the context of the rapid development of technologies and the introduction of artificial intelligence systems into all spheres of human life, a critically important question arises regarding the legal status of AI and responsibility for the consequences of its activities. The author carries out a detailed analysis of the structural elements of legal personality - legal capacity, capacity to act and tortious capacity - in the context of their potential application to artificial intelligence systems. Special attention is paid to the issue of the possibility of holding AI legally liable, which is a key aspect for determining its legal status. The study is based on an analysis of the latest regulatory framework, in particular the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act and the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, as well as on the works of domestic and foreign scientists. Various approaches to solving the problem are considered, including the concept of creating a separate category of «electronic person». Based on a comprehensive analysis, the author concludes that it is inappropriate to endow artificial intelligence with legal personality at the current stage of development of technologies and law. The position is substantiated that AI should be considered as an object of law and a tool in the hands of a person, and not as an autonomous subject of legal relations. The main arguments are: the absence of volitional and emotional components in AI, the inability to bear independent legal responsibility, dependence on a human developer or user, as well as potential risks to ensuring fundamental human rights. The author emphasizes the need to maintain a human-centric approach in law and to focus efforts on creating effective regulatory mechanisms for artificial intelligence systems that comply with the principles of human rights protection, transparency, accountability and non-discrimination.
T. P. Popovych (Mon,) studied this question.