---
title: AI can be held to account
date: "2025-11-10T23:00:27Z"
lastmod: "2025-11-10T23:00:29Z"
categories:
  - llms
wp_id: 4253
description: I argue that AI can be held legally accountable by citing precedents for corporations, ships, and rivers. Since we already grant personhood to non-human entities, we can apply similar frameworks to manage AI responsibility and deterrence.
keywords: [ai accountability, legal personhood, corporate personhood, ai law, legal history, ethics]
---

![AI can be held to account](/blog/assets/pig-court.webp)

"Humans can be held to account. Not AI."

I hear this often. But it's not true.

**Corporations** are non-human, but they can enter into contracts and face criminal charges.\
**Ships** can be sued directly. Courts can arrest the vessel itself.\
**Deities** and **temples** in India can own property.\
**Forests** and **rivers** in New Zealand, Colombia, Spain, have been granted legal personhood.\
Medieval Europe has held **animal** trials (e.g. for "guilty" pigs).

If we need to, AI can be held to account.

Whether we should is a different question. The question is how, and does it incentivize/deter the right behavior, or stifle innovation and help evade responsibility.

But the next time someone claims AI can't be held to account, I'll ask them, "Why not? Companies, ships, forests, and pigs can."

---

## Comments

<!-- wp-comments-start -->
<!-- wp-comments-end -->