Electronic personhood for artificial intelligence in the workplace

There are several legal and ethical problems associated with the far-reaching integration of man with Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the framework of algorithmic management. One of these problems is the question of the legal subjectivity of the parties to a contractual obligation within the framework of crowdworking, which includes the service provider, the Internet platform with AI, and the applicant's client. Crowdworking is an excellent example of a laboratory of interdependence and collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence as part of the algorithmic management process. Referring to the example of crowdworking platforms, we should ask whether, in the face of the rapid development of AI and algorithmic management, AI can be an employer equipped with electronic personhood? What characteristics does a work environment in which AI and algorithmic governance mechanisms play a dominant role? What kind of ethical implications are associated with the practical application of the concept of electronic subjectivity of AI in employment relations? This paper analyses the legal and ethical implications of electronic AI subjectivity in the work environment. The legal construction of electronic personhood is examined. The legal entity that uses AI, which manages the work process through algorithmic subordination, bears the risks resulting from such use (economic, personal, technical, and social) and full material responsibility (individual liability regime with the application of the presumption of guilt rule) in case of damage to an employee. Liability provisions can be complemented by a mandatory insurance scheme for AI users and a compensation fund that can offer support when none of the insurance policies covers the risk. A compensation fund can be paid for by the manufacturer, owner, user, or trainer of the AI and can compensate all those who suffer damage as a result of its operations. This is the direction proposed by the European Parliament, which has progressively called for robots to be given an electronic personality. The personalistic concept of work excludes the possibility of AI becoming a legal entity. Alongside legal arguments, ethical questions are of fundamental importance. The final part of the article presents the ethical implications of AI as an employer endowed with a legal entity (electronic personhood).