AI's 'fluid agency' unravels origin-based legal tests for authorship and liability; courts should adopt a pragmatic 'functional equivalence' rule that vests rights in human orchestrators and shifts responsibility toward enterprise-level or no-fault schemes.

Main Finding

When modern AI exhibits "fluid agency" (stochastic, dynamic, adaptive behavior that entangles human and machine contributions), provenance of creative and harmful acts becomes practically unmappable. The authors propose a domain-general legal principle of functional equivalence: where reasonable provenance practices cannot decisively attribute origin, treat human and AI contributions as functionally equivalent for allocating rights and responsibilities. This pragmatic default stabilizes doctrine across copyright (vest ownership in human orchestrators), patent (tie inventorship to human orchestration and reduction to practice), and tort (replace intractable causation with enterprise- and sector-level strict or no-fault schemes).

Key Points

• Definition of fluid agency: AI action pathways that are (i) stochastic (probabilistic/path-dependent), (ii) dynamic (co-evolving with user interaction), and (iii) adaptive (reorient across contexts), producing outputs that entangle human and machine contributions.
• Unmappability: In many realistic workflows (e.g., Deep Research Agents), it is practically impossible to trace which parts of an output originate with a human versus the AI; origin-based legal tests therefore fail or become unadministrable.
• Doctrinal failure modes:
  • Copyright: Contribution-based authorship tests break down when AI and human inputs are inseparable; conventional prompt/curation tests are often inadequate for DRAs and similar systems.
  • Patent: Inventorship doctrines anchored to human conception and reduction-to-practice are strained when pivotal insights emerge via AI orchestration; yet attributing inventorship to AI is normatively and legally problematic.
  • Tort: Causation- and fault-based liability inquiries become intractable where AI systems autonomously select means; this produces moral "crumple zones" and owner/operator gaps.
• Functional equivalence principle: as a fallback default (not a claim of moral parity), treat indeterminate human/AI contributions as interchangeable for rights/liability allocation if provenance cannot be established after reasonable practices.
• Concrete prescriptions:
  • Copyright: vest ownership in the human orchestrator (the person who set goals, constraints, and integrated outputs), avoiding attempts to parse inseparable contributions.
  • Patent: recognize human orchestrators and those who reduce AI-enabled inventions to practice as inventor-of-record; preserve incentivizing disclosures while avoiding inventorship paradoxes.
  • Tort: adopt enterprise-level or sector-specific strict/no-fault schemes to allocate loss and incentivize internalization of risk and safety investments.
• The proposal emphasizes administrability, predictability, and outcome-focused allocation of rights and responsibilities.

Data & Methods

• Type of research: doctrinal and conceptual legal scholarship with normative argumentation.
• Methods used:
  • Theoretical framing: synthesis of AI systems literature (agentic AI, generative models, DRAs) to define "fluid agency" and demonstrate unmappability.
  • Doctrinal analysis: close analysis of copyright, patent, and tort doctrines to show failure modes when provenance collapses.
  • Illustrative examples: thought experiments and contemporary AI system examples (e.g., Deep Research Agents, DeepResearch Bench, prompt-based generative models) to ground abstract claims.
  • Interdisciplinary engagement: draws on prior work in AI, law, ethics, and social science (e.g., responsibility-gap literature, electronic commerce equivalence precedents).
• Empirical content: primarily qualitative and conceptual; not an econometric or experimental study. The argument rests on plausibility of fluid agency trajectories and on doctrinal tractability/administrability rather than new quantitative data.

Implications for AI Economics

• Investment and R&D incentives
  • Clear default ownership (human orchestrator/firms) reduces ex ante uncertainty and transaction costs, making investments in agentic AI more predictable.
  • However, vesting rights with human orchestrators (often employees or hired specialists) may concentrate IP with firms that control orchestration, favoring vertically integrated players and potentially reducing competition from smaller innovators unless tailored licensing regimes emerge.
  • The patent prescription (human inventor-of-record despite AI-provided insights) preserves a pathway to protection that supports commercialization, but may distort incentive signals if firms can claim human orchestration without substantive human contribution.
• Market structure and competition
  • Functional equivalence likely benefits firms that can credibly document "orchestration" practices (legal teams, attribution logs), increasing first-mover and scale advantages and raising barriers for small entrants.
  • Firms with sophisticated provenance and governance systems will internalize rights and liabilities more easily, possibly accelerating market concentration in AI-enabled industries.
• Transaction costs and contract design
  • Reducing origin disputes lowers litigation and bargaining costs in content licensing and technology transfer, simplifying contracting around AI-assisted outputs.
  • Conversely, the potential for strategic over-claiming of orchestration (to capture rights) increases the need for industry standards, audits, or registries, raising compliance costs.
• Labor and task allocation
  • Treating human orchestrators as the legal focal point increases demand (and bargaining power) for skilled orchestrators, prompt engineers, and integrators who can bridge human objectives and agentic systems.
  • Routine tasks displaced by agentic AI may be redistributed; value capture may shift from individual creators to orchestration managers and platform owners.
• Liability, insurance, and risk management
  • Enterprise-level strict or no-fault schemes reallocating tort costs to firms increase internalization of risk and incentivize safety investments and monitoring—potentially lowering externalities but raising product/service prices.
  • Insurance markets will adapt: premiums, coverage models, and underwriting will pivot to firm-level exposure and provenance governance; smaller firms may face higher costs or difficulty obtaining insurance.
• Innovation dynamics and disclosure behavior
  • Patent and copyright defaults influence disclosure choices: if patents require human reduction-to-practice, firms may structure workflows to preserve human inputs (or document them), or alternatively prefer trade secrecy to avoid inventorship friction.
  • Copyright ownership defaults ease commercialization but could dampen authors’ bargaining power relative to firms deploying agentic AI.
• Welfare trade-offs and policy calibration
  • Functional equivalence reduces uncertainty, lowers enforcement costs, and promotes predictable allocation of rents—beneficial for overall innovation efficiency.
  • But it risks entrenching incumbent firms, misallocating rewards away from low-profile human contributors, and enabling rent-seeking through fabricated "orchestration" claims.
  • Optimal policy will need calibrations: verification standards for provenance, sector-specific no-fault thresholds, registries or disclosure rules, and anti-abuse safeguards (audits, sanctions for false orchestration claims).
• Measurement and empirical research agenda for AI economics
  • Key measurable quantities: litigation rates over origin, transaction costs in licensing AI outputs, concentration metrics in AI-enabled sectors, wage premia for orchestration roles, insurance premium changes, and R&D investment shifts post-adoption of functional-equivalence rules.
  • Natural experiments: jurisdictions or sectors adopting different defaults (e.g., stricter provenance requirements vs. functional equivalence) can reveal effects on innovation, prices, and market structure.
• Practical policy recommendations relevant to economists and policymakers
  • Pair functional-equivalence defaults with mandatory provenance efforts and standardized logging to limit gaming; calibrate burdens of proof and documentation expectations to firm size.
  • Design sector-specific liability regimes where harms are frequent and hard to attribute (e.g., medicine, finance) to spread risk and lower social costs.
  • Facilitate access to insurance and subsidies for smaller firms to avoid disproportionate competitive harms.
  • Monitor concentration effects and consider competition policy tools (interoperability, data-portability, disclosure) to maintain contestability.

Limitations and cautions - Functional equivalence is a pragmatic default, not an ontological endorsement of AI moral standing. - The rule can be gamed (fabricated orchestration), so effectiveness depends on provenance practices, audits, and enforcement. - Economic effects depend on implementation details (documentation burdens, sector carve-outs, enforcement intensity), so empirical monitoring and adaptive policy are essential.

Overall, the paper offers a legally pragmatic principle with wide economic consequences: it reduces attribution uncertainty and litigation costs but shifts rents, incentives, and risk allocation toward entities that can credibly claim human orchestration and manage enterprise liability. Policymakers should combine the functional-equivalence default with verification, sectoral calibration, and pro-competition measures to balance innovation promotion and equitable value distribution.