President Javier Milei’s administration has sent Congress a draft law that would rewrite Argentina’s corporate code, a code that has governed businesses since 1972. The centerpiece of the proposal is a new legal form called the “non‑human corporation,” an entity that can be owned, operated and even sign contracts through artificial‑intelligence agents or robots. Human shareholders would be optional, not required.
On paper, the most autonomous version resembles a blockchain‑recorded decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Yet the text of the bill leaves a human floor intact. A “legal representative” must sign any act that the law still demands a person’s signature for, and a “promoter” bears unlimited liability for the company’s obligations from the moment it is formed. Where anti‑money‑laundering rules apply, a human compliance officer is also mandatory.
The government frames the reform around three pillars: keep AI itself free from regulation, create the non‑human corporation category, and offer a low corporate tax rate to lure technology investors to Buenos Aires. The initiative runs alongside Super RIGI, a separate incentive package aimed at large AI data centers, but the two share the same target audience – global AI firms seeking friendly jurisdictions.
Supporters argue the new category will make regulation easier, not harder. Milei posted on social media that giving AI‑run entities a defined legal status gives regulators a clear target, rather than an elusive piece of software operating in the shadows of existing law. The argument hinges on the idea that a named structure can be overseen, inspected and taxed like any traditional company.
Legal analysts, however, point out that the draft does not eliminate human responsibility. Even the DAO‑style model requires a director who configures or supervises the AI system, and that director remains answerable for the entity’s actions. The “human promoter” provision, with its unlimited liability, is meant to act as a safety net, but critics say it may be thin when decisions are made by algorithms no one fully understands.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari has joined the chorus of skeptics, warning that stripping a clearly accountable human from a company’s decision‑making creates the very liability gap corporate law was designed to prevent. He likened Milei’s vision to the Dutch East India Company’s private empire, suggesting Buenos Aires could become a modern‑day “Batavia” rather than a financial hub.
Microsoft’s AI chief Mustafa Suleyman echoed similar concerns, arguing that AI agents deserve no more legal standing than a laptop. In a recent essay, Suleyman urged developers to resist the illusion that their systems are quasi‑persons entitled to rights.
The debate arrives at a time when most governments are moving in the opposite direction, tightening rules around autonomous systems. The European Union’s AI Act, for example, emphasizes human oversight and accountability. Argentina’s gamble, if it survives legislative scrutiny, would stand out as a bold – and risky – experiment.
Whether the Senate will pass the bill as drafted remains uncertain. Even if it does, the practical challenges of enforcing liability, ensuring compliance and preventing abuse could test the limits of the legal framework. For now, Argentina’s proposal has sparked a global conversation about how to balance innovation with responsibility in the age of autonomous machines.
Este artículo fue escrito con la asistencia de IA.
News Factory APP - noticias agénticas para impulsar tu SEO y AEO.