Do We Need to Discuss AI Personhood? An Analysis Between Technological Logic and A Critique of Category Mistakes

The existing scholarly discussion regarding "AI Personhood" is essentially a Pseudo-Problem stemming from a category mistake. First, from a technological ontological perspective, AI is rooted in probabilistic statistics and pattern matching. There is an essential disparity between AI intelligence and human cognition, which possesses intentionality and subjective experience. Consequently, anthropomorphic framing of AI cannot be one of the sources of law regarding Personhood. Building on this premise, we systematically refute four theoretical stances: Human-AI symbiosis, AI legal fiction Personhood, AI Limited Personhood, and AI Dynamic Personhood. The fallacy of AI Personhood is caused by semantic drift and an epistemological break between a functionalist metaphor of natural science and a normative necessity of social science. Upon negating the necessity of AI Personhood, we advocate for an "instrumental neutrality" perspective, defining AI as a tool that serves as an extension of human will. Under this framework, developers and users must also equally share the liability under product liability rules and the fault principle. Facing the unique probabilistic risks and scale effects of AI, governance must shift from traditional ex-post remedy to ex-ante governance. This involves legislatively mandating the embedding of safety and ethical norms into the preliminary technical design stages to prevent technical loss of control and safeguard human Legal Subjectivity in the era of Strong AI.