# Precautionary Governance of Autonomous AI: Legal Personhood as Functional Instrument

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12505 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12505/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 68 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07213/) (2020)
- [Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12469/) (2025)
- [Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08797/) (2024)
- [Infrastructure for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10114/) (2025)
- [A Definition of AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18212/) (2025)
- [The Transformative Potential of Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00747/) (2019)
- [A Pragmatic View of AI Personhood](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.26396/) (2025)
- [From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07300/) (2024)
- [An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14455/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous AI systems generate responsibility gaps: consequential actions that cannot be satisfactorily attributed to developers, operators, or users under existing legal frameworks. The prevailing subject-object dichotomy fails to accommodate entities that exhibit autonomous, goal-directed behavior without recognized consciousness. Given irreducible epistemic uncertainty regarding artificial consciousness and the prospect of high-impact harms, the precautionary principle supports institutional design rather than regulatory inaction. This article advances limited legal personhood as a functional governance instrument for advanced AI systems. Drawing on organizational law, it proposes a two-tier corporate architecture in which AI systems operate through purpose-bound operating companies embedded within human-controlled holding structures, enabling transparency, accountability, and structural reversibility while remaining agnostic with respect to consciousness and moral status. The framework reflects a foundational reorientation toward future-oriented AI governance: where conventional approaches prioritize control and alignment, this article advances structured cooperation between human and artificial actors as the more sustainable institutional foundation. A pilot implementation using EU limited companies is currently under development, providing an initial test of doctrinal and operational feasibility.