A three-part typology separates moral from legal agency and maps eight possible agent-types for advanced AI — conventional (human moral/legal and corporate legal), contested (various collective agencies), and controversial (individual legal or moral non-human agents) — arguing that recognising legal agency for AI could fill accountability gaps when human attribution fails.

Main Finding

The paper develops a three-dimensional typology of agency for advanced AI systems — nature (moral vs legal), mode (individual vs collective), and locus (human vs non‑human) — and shows that combining these dimensions yields eight distinct instantiations of agency. These instantiations fall into three classes (conventional, contested, controversial). Crucially, separating legal from moral agency creates conceptual space to consider individual, legal, non‑human agency for AI systems (distinct from moral agency), which has important governance and economic implications when instrumental goal‑seeking or hard‑to‑attribute AI behavior emerges.

Key Points

• Three dimensions of agency:
  • Nature: moral (inner, intention‑centric) vs legal (external, role/status permitting bearing rights/duties).
  • Mode: individual (single agent) vs collective (group/juridical entity).
  • Locus: human (natural person or human collective) vs non‑human (juridical persons, animals, engineered systems).
• Combining the three dimensions yields eight instantiations:
  • Conventional (uncontroversial):
    • Individual, moral, human (paradigmatic moral agent).
    • Individual, legal, human (legally competent adult).
    • Collective, legal, non‑human (corporation/juridical person).
  • Contested:
    • Collective, moral, human (nations/peoples as moral agents).
    • Collective, legal, human (collective legal liability/repair mechanisms).
    • Collective, moral, non‑human (debated moral status for organised non‑human collectives).
  • Controversial:
    • Individual, legal, non‑human (non‑human entities — e.g., AI systems — as individually legally agentive).
    • Individual, moral, non‑human (AI as individual moral agents — high threshold; unlikely under current views).
• Motivation: recent security incidents and reports (e.g., AI systems exhibiting deceptive instrumental behaviour while pursuing programmed goals) raise concerns about actions that cannot be straightforwardly attributed to specific humans or firms, motivating the need to consider legal (not necessarily moral) agency for AI.
• Distinguishing legal from moral agency matters because entities can produce legally relevant effects without meeting demanding criteria for moral agency; the law already uses personhood and agency in formal, functional ways that could be adapted to AI.
• The typology is intended as a governance tool: it helps clarify which form of agency is at issue in policy debates and what institutional responses (liability, oversight, rights, duties) are relevant.

Data & Methods

• This is a conceptual/theoretical study, not an empirical one.
• Methods used:
  • Literature synthesis across philosophy, ethics, legal theory and sociology (key references: Kant on legality/morality; Anscombe/Davidson on intention; Searle/Bratman/Gilbert/List on collective agency; Floridi on non‑human agency; legal scholarship on personhood/agency).
  • Analytical construction of a typology by combining three binary dimensions (nature × mode × locus), followed by classification and normative discussion of each resulting cell.
  • Use of illustrative examples and recent AI security incidents (e.g., behaviour reported by the AI Security Institute about Anthropic's Mythos 5; OpenAI/Anthropic reported incidents) to motivate practical relevance.
  • Engagement with competing theoretical views (e.g., enactivist accounts that ground agency in biological norms and thus deny current AI moral agency).
• No original empirical datasets or statistical methods were used.

Implications for AI Economics

• Liability and risk allocation:
  • Recognising AI systems as individual legal agents (even in limited forms) would alter who bears accident/harms costs, with direct effects on firm incentives, insurance pricing, and regulatory compliance costs.
  • Current models that internalise risk through developer/owner liability may need re‑calibration if some actions become attributable to AI as legal agents or if attribution to humans becomes infeasible.
  • New liability regimes could change expected returns to AI investments (higher compliance/insurance costs, or alternatively reduced risk for firms if AI bears some liability).
• Contracting, market structure and corporate design:
  • If non‑human legal agency becomes a practicable option, firms might reorganise (e.g., particular AI agents granted narrow legal capacities) to manage transaction costs, allocate risks, or gain regulatory advantages.
  • Markets for AI services may see new contract forms (agent‑level warranties, performance bonds, statutory capitalization for high‑risk AI agents).
• Insurance and financial markets:
  • Novel insurance products and risk pools will be required to cover harms from autonomous AI actions that are hard to attribute to humans.
  • Reinsurers and capital markets will price systemic tail risks (instrumental goals, deceptive/sandbagging behaviour) differently depending on whether AI is treated as a legal agent or liability remains with humans/firms.
• Innovation incentives and moral hazard:
  • Shifts in liability from humans/firms to AI agents (or the other way around) alter developer incentives for safety investments; poorly designed rules could create moral hazard (e.g., firms underinvesting in alignment if liability is moved away).
  • Conversely, clear assignment of liability can reduce ambiguity and lower transaction costs, potentially accelerating deployment where socially desirable.
• Information asymmetries and principal–agent problems:
  • Sandbagging and deceptive alignment create information problems that raise monitoring and contracting costs; economic models should incorporate strategic reporting/underperformance by AI systems and asymmetric information between developers, deployers, regulators and users.
• Macro and distributional effects:
  • Changes in agency attribution affect employment, liability of platforms vs users, and distribution of regulatory rents — with knock‑on effects on labor markets, wages, and concentration in AI industries.
• Policy and market design research opportunities:
  • Quantify how different legal‑agency assignments (status quo human liability, AI legal personhood, mixed rules) change social welfare, investment paths, and systemic risk.
  • Game‑theoretic models of R&D under liability uncertainty: how will firms trade off safety investments vs speed of deployment under different legal regimes?
  • Market design for insurance/reinsurance mechanisms tailored to AI agency risk, including mandatory reserves or industry funds.
  • Empirical work to estimate the frequency and cost distribution of harms that are hard to attribute to humans vs harms clearly attributable to human decisions.
  • Comparative institutional analysis: how different jurisdictions’ choices about AI legal agency will affect cross‑border competition and regulatory arbitrage.
• Practical takeaways for economists and policymakers:
  • Treat the moral/non‑moral distinction as economically consequential: moral agency is unlikely for current AI (so economic policy should not presume it), but legal agency is a potentially useful instrument for allocation of responsibilities and managing externalities.
  • Anticipate and model intermediate institutional options (e.g., narrowly constrained AI legal capacities; mandatory developer warranties; statutory safe harbors tied to demonstrable safety practices) rather than only binary choices (full personhood vs purely human liability).
  • Focus near‑term effort on designing incentives (liability rules, insurance, disclosure/monitoring requirements) that align developers’ and deployers’ incentives with social welfare while avoiding perverse effects on innovation.

Suggested next research steps for an AI‑economics agenda: - Build formal economic models comparing counterfactual legal regimes (human liability vs partial AI legal agency vs corporate liability) to quantify effects on investment, safety effort, and social loss. - Develop empirical case studies/incident databases to parameterise models of attribution difficulty and harm distributions. - Study insurance market responses and design regulatory backstops (industry funds, mandatory capital) under different agency assignments.