Artificially intelligent humanoid robots represent a significant advancement in human innovation, standing apart from conventional machines to achieve a complexity comparable to that of humans. These robots are designed as “artificial agents,” capable of perceiving and interacting with the real world. Humanoids can engage with humans, communicate, learn, generate information, and assist in various tasks. Consequently, it is suggested that these humanoids could be considered “artificial persons,” each assigned a unique identifier or digital signature that could potentially link to their owner’s biometric identity.
In the dance of circuits and cognition, humanoid robots emerge not just as machines, but as mirrors reflecting our own complexity—a testament to humanity’s unyielding quest for connection and understanding.
Shailendra Kumar
Humanoid robots as an “Artificial Person” and an integral part of human society and ecosystem
AI humanoids are becoming more advanced due to ongoing developments in artificial intelligence. Some modern humanoids can not only recognise human faces, interpret various facial expressions, and identify a range of hand gestures, but also convey their own emotions. These robots can make informed assumptions about a person’s emotional state during interactions, using that knowledge to help individuals achieve their objectives. Although AI robots are structurally distinct from living beings, attributing these behaviours to their “true” selves would be oversimplified. However, social entities don’t have to have a self. Objects are not passive elements awaiting human action but possess inherent activity. Both human and non-human entities play roles in shaping the physical and social world.
Agents and users cannot form genuine social bonds, yet agent-user interactions often result in complex and intriguing behaviours. Humanoid robots, robotic pets, and digital companions are increasingly regarded as integral to society and the environment. Many owners view AI humanoids and AI pets as family members. The concept of an “ecosystem” encompasses living and non-living components that interact in intricate ways, with non-living elements being just as essential to human survival as biological ones. This is not the first instance of humans extending the concept of “personhood” to non-human entities. In the legal and financial spheres, companies and organisations are recognised as “artificial persons,” with similar rights and responsibilities to natural persons.
Artificial humans, such as AI humanoids and robots, are technological creations with human-like attributes. These robots, equipped with varying levels of artificial intelligence, can perform tasks, solve problems, and make decisions. They may resemble humans or other forms and can process vast amounts of data quickly and accurately to assist in decision-making and problem-solving. AI robots can interpret and respond to human language through text, speech, or other methods and can learn and improve over time. Advanced AI systems can simulate emotions and empathy, enabling smoother communication with humans. Their programming dictates whether they operate autonomously, independently, or with limited human oversight. Whether AI constructs can achieve self-awareness or self-monitoring remains a subject of ongoing debate.
Given their roles in customer service, healthcare, and entertainment fields, AI robots are increasingly considered “artificial persons.” Moreover, they can be programmed to make ethical decisions. These considerations suggest that granting some AI robots legal human status warrants careful reflection.
Identity of an artificially intelligent humanoid robot and the human-robot interaction
As human-robot cohabitation becomes more common, individuals may seek artificial companions that not only match their preferred appearance and behaviour but also share similar interests and beliefs. This raises the need to consider the nature of identity in artificially intelligent robots. Understanding this concept is vital, as it allows humans to form a unique connection with robots that is unlike any other relationship.
Personal identity of AI robot
Body theory posits that the physical form is essential in defining identity. Since AI humanoid robots maintain a consistent physical structure from creation to termination, their identities are presumed to remain intact. Although individual components may be replaced over time, the robot’s function and purpose persist, with each iteration improving upon the last, suggesting a continuous enhancement cycle. The body, therefore, remains significant. Based on body theory, it is important to explore whether AI robots can be assigned human-like body identities, especially as they cohabit with humans and require a distinct physical identity to align with the concept of bodily identity.
However, memory or consciousness theory challenges this notion. For example, John Locke’s memory theory argues that identity is not rooted in physical appearance but in non-physical elements such as memories and information. In the case of AI robots’ development lags behind human consciousness, their identities might be more accurately defined by their stored and processed memories rather than their physical form. This approach presents memory as an alternative basis for understanding AI robot identity.
Social identity of AI robot
After examining human identity, it is essential to consider the social identity of AI robots. A key question is whether an AI should align its identity with its group or human counterparts. Social identity theory involves three stages: categorisation, identification, and comparison.
Initially, AI must be programmed or taught to recognise a class or group it can belong to. Humans will perform this role until AI reaches a level of sentience or intelligence to make independent choices. During categorisation, humans may assign AI an identity, which could mirror that of its owner. Like humans, AI can belong to multiple groups, with its identity potentially linked to its owner’s characteristics.
In the second phase, social identification, AI fosters a sense of unity with humans, which could lead to trust, respect, and curiosity. Once recognised, users may develop emotional attachments to their AI companions. The AI might even imitate its owner’s traits, deepening the connection.
The final stage is comparison, where humans and AI contrast themselves with others within and outside their groups. This process can lead to bias or prejudice, as AI and individuals differentiate between in-group and out-group dynamics.
As AI robots increasingly mirror human behaviours and functions, new challenges emerge. One such challenge is the need to carefully design the space structure and footprint of robots, as nature has done for humans. To ensure accountability and traceability, each robot—regardless of brand or model—must leave a unique digital footprint, preventing identical digital signatures.
Conclusion
A humanoid robot miming human behaviour and appearance could be regarded as a “person” or “artificial person.” Granting AI humanoids the status of an artificial person, also known as a juridical person, would afford them specific attributes such as legal recognition, perpetual existence, limited liability, ownership, control over separate assets, tax obligations, the ability to contract, an exclusive name, accountability, and provisions for termination and settlement, depending on jurisdiction.
It could also be argued that AI humanoids develop personal and social identities akin to humans, further supporting the case for recognising them as artificial persons. These identities may evolve through interactions with humans and society, making the question of their legal and social status increasingly relevant as technology advances.
🔬🧫🧪🔍🤓👩🔬🦠🔭📚
Journal reference
Kumar, S., & Choudhury, S. (2024). Exploring the Concept of AI Humanoids as an “Artificial Person”: Contemplating the Human-Robot Relationship in Society and the Identity of Humanoids. Global Philosophy, 34(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-024-09719-0
