The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
The issue is if the corporation is owned and run by an AI. Since the AI cannot really be punished if the company does some harm, unlike if the corporation was run by humans who can be punished.
An AI cannot be punished at all. So they will not behave with that in mind.
It's already noteworthy when a very wealthy or politically powerful person is abruptly disempowered, even more so when they end up losing their personal liberty or life. I put it to you that's it's noteworthy because it is such a rare event, even though there are a lot of very well-reourced sociopaths.
Imagine the consequences of trusting thousands of entities that each far exceed human intelligence, have agency, can cooperate, but have no feelings.
Bureaucracies are precisely a mechanism by which trust happens between people who have never met each other. For example, when I go to a market and hand over a piece of paper to the women who sells me fish, we are both trusting the system.
And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets.
So, I disagree.
But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
Be one of the voices that explain the danger in handing over control to non-humans.
Vote for politicians who understand the danger and who I think will fight it.