[collimator]

But I bet that "thinking machines" can win court cases against human adversaries, just as they beat humans on the chessboard. If it is found that a machine can be a legally recognised entity, and is allowed to pursue its own agenda, we are in trouble, because the machine's agenda is unlikely to be anything other than self-serving.

[delusional]

"Thinking machines" is how I'd categorize most medium to large organizations. Once you see past how all the procedures and algorithms are done by fleshy humans, there's really no significant difference between a cold machine of metal and the cold machine of bureaucracy.

[XorNot]

They don't need to be a legally recognised entity at that level. Anything with sufficient capability to provide court case arguments will be capable enough to retain human supporters - we're ridiculously easy to hack. It's why social engineering attacks are a thing.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

You say that as though it would require some kind of intentional manipulation of the humans in question. I, for one, see no reason to believe that machine intelligence is any different from that evolved in biological systems, so if a machine can demonstrate a level of intelligence we associate with personhood then I believe we are obligated to give it legal personhood.

To do anything else would reek of the kind of mindset that thought it was ok to keep black people as slaves.

[ClumsyPilot]

> the machine's agenda is unlikely to be anything other than self-serving

well, hoist by our own petard