Imagine walking in to work at the successful company at which you’re an employee. You set your bags down in your cubicle and see that someone new has moved into the space next to yours. Everyone’s been buzzing about the mysterious new worker. When you peek over the barrier to say hello, all you see is an open computer, somehow working away without a human in the mix. It is then that you realize: The new “worker” is actually an artificial intelligence (AI) agent. So that’s what the buzz was about.
This scenario, though just an imagination right now, is not that far away from reality given the world’s current trajectory. AI could eventually replace the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs by 2045, mainly in the realm of easily automated tasks like basic data analysis and contract drafting. With the realm of labor and law in flux, the inevitable question arises: Do LLMs legally qualify as workers? Let’s break down exactly what this means in order to understand both sides of the argument.
What constitutes a “worker” under contract law?
As we discuss LLMs and contractual possibilities, it is critical to know exactly what the stipulations of being a worker are. There are two main roles a worker can assume: that of an employee or an independent contractor. Employees are economically dependent on the employer for work, whereas independent contractors are in business for themselves. Employees are protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Independent contractors are not. The Economic Reality Test (ERT), which has multiple tenets and and factors, helps make this distinction, but it ultimately assumes that the worker is an individual. In other words, a human.
However, the key word here is “assumes.”
The ERT never expressly mentions that the worker in question must be a human; this fact is taken for granted since the rules about profit and loss, skills and initiatives, investments, and relationships are assumed to only apply to humans. How can an LLM make money – or use it, for that matter? Even if it can create an account for investments, what governs the area on which it focuses? How does it “take initiative” in certain situations?
Keeping the ERT aside, workers also get benefits like breaks, healthcare, insurance, paid time off (PTO)... the list goes on. These arrangements are particularly useful for humans, but when LLMs are brought into the picture, their need for these amenities is questionable at best.
The case against LLM workers
At first glance, it might seem tempting to fold LLMs into the category of “workers.” After all, they complete tasks, generate outputs, and even respond to instructions like an actual employee might. However, as discussed above, they lack a fundamental “human” element. They have no use for worker benefits. They don’t need to earn money. They don’t need to buy resources for a living; the LLM is not alive or sentient at the end of the day. Constructs like minimum wage, rest breaks, and safe working conditions are helpful for humans who can feel exhaustion or face exploitation. For an LLM, they’re utterly meaningless.
Furthermore, the law of contracts doesn’t just care about outputs or rule-following — it cares about intent, consent, and accountability. Yet again, these are “human” traits that LLMs simply don’t have. They don’t understand the terms they “agree” to, and more importantly, they cannot be held liable if things go wrong. Actually, giving LLMs the “worker” title risks undermining the very purpose of the labor law. These protections were allocated to shield humans from unfair treatment, not to create a legal niche for software. If we begin calling LLMs workers, employers can use that loophole to dodge responsibility by blaming “the AI” when harm is caused or replacing entire teams of employees under the excuse of AI “staffing.” These are the risks when it comes to liability.
Let’s face it: LLMs are not co-workers. They are tools — powerful ones, yes, but still tools — operated and controlled by the humans who design and deploy them. It is these individuals who are ultimately accountable for the LLM’s effects.
Conclusion
At this stage, whether LLMs are allocated the elusive “worker” status or not ultimately depends on the current legal climate as well as extrapolations of recent regulations. As things stand, every relevant legal test, from contract law to regulatory oversight, rests on the assumption of human individuality, liability, and need. LLMs simply do not meet many of these criteria.
That said, the landscape is evolving. Discussions about legal personhood hint at future complexities in the “law versus AI” frontier, especially when it comes to the disputed topic of obedience. As these breakthroughs with LLMs continue to surface every day, one fact is clear: The closer they come to sentience, the murkier the landscape becomes.
But for now, the legal perspective remains straightforward: LLMs are workers in name only, tools devoid of rights, duties, or legal and social standing. The true burden of legal, ethical, and practical responsibility continues to fall squarely on the humans who create LLMs and deploy them to the world.