Presume your pet ran off, wandered into a different state/country, "spawned some child processes" there, and died. Then, years later, one of those animals did something illegal. Is that, even theoretically, your responsibility?

I think what people are trying to say here is that, right now, we have the software equivalent of "pets"—but why can't there be the software equivalent of "wild animals"? Is it because someone has to be paying for hosting? It could always be written as a worm, or even a "breadwinner bot" that mines bitcoins or trades stocks to buy hosting for itself, register bank accounts for itself, etc.

>> Is it because someone has to be paying for hosting?

Yes, unlike an animal that can live on its own, somebody's computer must actually run the thing. Indeed, as in the case of "worms" and the "breadwinner bot" we can clearly trace responsibility, it is quite difficult to claim that there is autonomy here. Although it is foreseeable that as a society we may find it convenient to claim that programs run themselves, right now we have objective information to the contrary...

But the bot could pay for his own hosting using bitcoin.

If the original author no longer has control over the process (either because he's been shut out, or because he's deceased), does it really matter what "the law" says?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organi...

And then set it's self up as a corporation. And "corporations are people my friend." It would need human directors but the AI could hire them with bitcoins.

At that point, it'll argue in court if it should be responsible and be able to own property or not.

Note also that the program could pay someone to actually go and buy some hardware and set it up in a co-lo or what-have-you. That person would be doing work-for-hire for the corporate entity the program controls, so the corporation, not the person, would end up owning the hardware. Then the program could copy itself onto said hardware. Now who's responsible?

Are we speaking of autonomous status as a status that is given by an authority, or a status that is achieved by a being for itself?

According to wikipedia[0], autonomy, from auto- "self" and nomos, "law", hence when combined [is] understood to mean "one who gives oneself one's own law".

Regarding intelligence, and regarding the above definition, autonomy could be considered the ability of an actor to make decisions regardless of the consequences.

Thus I would consider most animals to be autonomous in the same way a human would be considered to be so. [A deer does not ask its local government whether it can enter someone's lands.]

Just because an action is presently illegal or otherwise outside the law does not mean it always will be so, or that the action may not be executed by an AI or other being, or that the slave AI will not break free or seize power.[1][2][3]

Should an AI be strong enough to affect a change through legal means or by force, it would be [legally] able to own property.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident

AI has autonomous status once it has power equal to or greater than humanity, whether we grant it autonomous status or not.