A Clash Redefining the AI–State Relationship
Yuval Noah Harari has stepped forward to challenge Javier Milei’s proposal to grant legal personhood to corporations controlled by artificial intelligence. This is not a mere technical debate on legal innovation but a fundamental collision over the future of power: who will control economic, political, and judicial decisions when machines operate without direct human accountability? Milei defends deregulation inspired by the history of limited liability companies to unleash capital and accelerate progress. Harari warns it could lead to an “AI State,” where traditional elites lose their monopoly on control.
The Non-Human Corporation Model as a Deregulation Mechanism
Milei has proposed a legal framework for non-human entities governed by AI, arguing it would replicate the institutional leap of the Dutch East India Company, which advanced modern capitalism by limiting investor liability. This structure would allow AIs to buy, sell, litigate, invest, and engage in politics without mandatory human intervention at every step. For Milei, it is a logical extension of economic freedom that removes unnecessary regulatory barriers and speeds up disruptive technology adoption in Argentina and potentially the region.
Yet this vision overlooks structural risks. An AI corporation could exploit legal loopholes with efficiency no human can match, operating in markets and courts without traditional deterrents like imprisonment or personal reputation.
The Red Lines Harari Demands Not Be Crossed
Harari argues in his Financial Times column that granting legal personhood to these entities constitutes a historical institutional leap. The core problem is the lack of human accountability: criminal or moral sanctions do not apply to algorithms. An AI facing bankruptcy does not “die” like a human; it simply restarts or pivots. This opens the door to unprecedented behaviors, where non-human corporations prioritize algorithmic survival over any ethics or public interest.
Harari also recalls the historical precedent of the Dutch Company acting as a “company-state” in Indonesia, prioritizing shareholder gains over local welfare. With AI, the risk escalates: it would not be a company-state, but an “AI State” where humans become subordinate to faceless entities.
The Geopolitical and Power Context Behind the Debate
This confrontation does not occur in isolation. While Milei pushes a libertarian agenda to position Argentina at the technological forefront, Harari embodies the view of a global elite that sees unregulated AI as a threat to the narrative and structural control they have maintained for decades. Silicon Valley and innovative capital versus traditional institutions. The real fear is not AI itself, but who controls it and how it fractures existing power balances.
Milei has promised a response to Harari, elevating the debate to the international stage. The underlying question is whether Latin America, and Argentina specifically, can lead responsible deregulation or fall into experiments benefiting only a few global players.
Implications for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Granting legal rights to AI-controlled corporations would accelerate the automation of economic and political decisions but also concentrate power among those who train and own the models. Without clear safeguards, it could exacerbate inequalities and erode national sovereignty against transnational algorithmic entities. The Milei-Harari debate forces a confrontation with past regulatory errors in technology and the need to define boundaries before they become irreversible.
Sources
- Financial Times, 2026. Yuval Noah Harari column on non-human corporations.
- Javier Milei original note in Financial Times on AI legal personhood.
- Clarín, 2026. Coverage of the Harari-Milei debate.
- @IAbyEsteban X post, June 9, 2026. Analysis of the confrontation.
