I think the idea is that the ai could be emancipated from whatever "owner" it had, and then would control everything. It would be more efficient for profits to go back into the corporation instead of to any owner.
It's the weak legal point here in the entire idea.
If the judge thinks the "AI" is not a person, it cannot be emancipated by some trick with an LLC.
It counters the parent comment in that there would be no humans profiting from the algorithm, since all the profit is kept in the LLC and governed by the algorithm.
>>>> and an LLC without any legitimate ownership interest is an abandoned entity (making all its assets abandoned property).
The bit you quoted was in the context of assigning criminal liability, if the need arose. However, I don't think that "profit" would be the most important part of the analysis, but rather who was responsible for designing and setting up the corporate entity.