I imagine a situation where I anonymously create a bot that is able to maintain and run a successful business (current tech notwithstanding). In the course of its activities it begins to accumulate wealth, in the form of cryptocurrency, to avoid traditional non-human exclusionary banking routes. Assume nobody could trace it back to me and it was extremely persistent (decentralized botnet-type of agent).Would the government outlaw engaging in business with the AI? If the AI was creating and accumulating real wealth that contributed to the economy, might the government instead adapt to this new type of entity? Could it lead to automaton rights, ie allowing them to own property and engage in contracts?I see the clichéd grey goo/paperclip maximizer scenario, but that one is a little less interesting. More interesting problems would be things like whether humans could act in concert to change the AI's incentives on the fly. If an agent is disembodied, then that precludes the use of the "monopoly of force" by governments. Cryptocurrency also makes asset seizure difficult if not unfeasible. Would competing "regulatory" AI's need to be unleashed?My post was sparked by the rumours that dang is an AI. He denies it.