The article is based on a fundamentally stupid premise
> So it won’t be possible to assign all AI income to their human or corporate owners, as in many cases there won’t be any.
It’s not possible for something to be owned without a legal entity being the owner. Whether that’s a real person or a corporate one. For an autonomous agent to come into possession of an income in the absence of an owner, some type of fraud must have occurred, which would invalidate the basis of any “property rights” the author is supposing it might have. The authors idea of laundering your labour through an autonomous agent is even more fantasy based. Honestly who approves this sort of thing for publication?… seems like it’s just playing into peoples fear of AI
> So it won’t be possible to assign all AI income to their human or corporate owners, as in many cases there won’t be any.
It’s not possible for something to be owned without a legal entity being the owner. Whether that’s a real person or a corporate one. For an autonomous agent to come into possession of an income in the absence of an owner, some type of fraud must have occurred, which would invalidate the basis of any “property rights” the author is supposing it might have. The authors idea of laundering your labour through an autonomous agent is even more fantasy based. Honestly who approves this sort of thing for publication?… seems like it’s just playing into peoples fear of AI