How Should the Law Treat Future AI Systems? Fictional Legal Personhood versus Legal Identity

The law draws a sharp distinction between objects and persons, and between two kinds of persons, the ''fictional'' kind (i.e. corporations), and the ''non-fictional'' kind (individual or ''natural'' persons). This paper will assess whether we maximize overall long-term legal coherence by (A) maintaining an object classification for all future AI systems, (B) creating fictional legal persons associated with suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (giving these fictional legal persons derogable rights and duties associated with certified groups of existing persons, potentially including free speech, contract rights, and standing to sue ''on behalf of'' the AI system), or (C) recognizing non-fictional legal personhood through legal identity for suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (recognizing them as entities meriting legal standing with non-derogable rights which for the human case include life, due process, habeas corpus, freedom from slavery, and freedom of conscience). We will clarify the meaning and implications of each option along the way, considering liability, copyright, family law, fundamental rights, civil rights, citizenship, and AI safety regulation. We will tentatively find that the non-fictional personhood approach may be best from a coherence perspective, for at least some advanced AI systems. An object approach may prove untenable for sufficiently humanoid advanced systems, though we suggest that it is adequate for currently existing systems as of 2025. While fictional personhood would resolve some coherence issues for future systems, it would create others and provide solutions that are neither durable nor fit for purpose. Finally, our review will suggest that ''hybrid'' approaches are likely to fail and lead to further incoherence: the choice between object, fictional person and non-fictional person is unavoidable.