Argentina's AI-operated businesses still rely on human involvement.

      The Argentinian government aims to allow a company to operate without a designated human in charge and has submitted a bill to Congress to legalize this concept. The proposal introduces a new category known as the non-human corporation, which would be managed by AI agents or robots capable of entering contracts and managing assets independently, with human shareholders being optional rather than mandatory.

      However, a closer examination of the bill reveals that it still relies more on human involvement than President Javier Milei's presentation implies, especially at a time when many governments are tightening regulations around AI rather than easing them. In its most independent form, a blockchain-based structure modeled on a decentralized autonomous organization would still necessitate a human legal representative to authorize acts requiring a person’s signature, as well as a human promoter who bears unlimited responsibility for the company’s obligations upon its establishment, based on legal reviews of the draft.

      Additionally, in situations where anti-money-laundering rules apply, a human compliance officer is also required. The government introduced the draft in May, proposing to overhaul Argentina’s general corporations law that has been in place since 1972. Officials have presented the reform as being based on three key elements: keeping AI unregulated, establishing the category of non-human corporations, and implementing a low corporate tax rate to attract technology investments to Buenos Aires.

      This initiative is distinct from Super RIGI, another governmental incentive program for large AI data centers, although both projects aim at the same investors. The government's approach is competitive, as Milei’s administration aspires for Argentina to become the preferred jurisdiction for AI projects that prefer to avoid regulatory oversight or the necessity of a human board. Whether this ambition can withstand scrutiny regarding the bill's liability provisions remains to be seen.

      Legal commentators have noted that even the proposed autonomous structures maintain what one analysis referred to as a "human floor," since a director overseeing an AI system remains accountable for its actions. The proposal has been met with sharp criticism from historian Yuval Noah Harari, who argued that eliminating a clear human accountability from corporate decision-making creates the very liability gap that corporate law aims to prevent. Harari referenced Milei’s own analogy of the plan to the Dutch East India Company, highlighting that the company’s most significant act was destroying the port of Jayakarta in 1619 and subsequently ruling the area as a private empire. He warned that Buenos Aires risks becoming a “new Batavia” rather than evolving into a financial center.

      Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman also shared similar views, stating that AI agents should receive no more legal recognition than a laptop and emphasizing that developers should resist any notion that their systems are quasi-persons entitled to rights. Milei responded extensively on social media, contending that establishing a defined legal status for AI-operated entities would simplify regulation, not complicate it, as regulators would have a specific entity to address instead of an unaccountable software operating beyond current laws.

      This argument relies on the categories remaining intact as AI-driven entities function on a larger scale, which has yet to be tested by any jurisdiction. Critics argue that the deterrents that keep human executives in check—mainly the threat of legal action—are largely ineffective against algorithms, and the promoter’s unlimited liability may be inadequate when the entity makes decisions not fully understood by any person.

      It remains uncertain whether the Argentinian Congress will approve the bill as is, and whether other nations will adopt similar measures. This discussion unfolds as regulators in other regions move in the opposite direction, tightening the rules surrounding autonomous systems. Advocacy groups supporting the EU’s AI regulations seek increased human oversight of automated decision-making instead of less, while companies like SAP are restructuring the executive oversight of AI rather than diminishing it.

      The proposal from Argentina is a gamble that adopting a contrasting approach will yield success first, with a person still accountable behind the scenes, no matter the marketing narrative.