Recording phone calls is generally governed by wiretapping law such as 18 USC 2511. The law starts by addressing the proscribed act, which is if one (I'll get to "one" below, which is the crux of the matter)
intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any
other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or
The definition of "intercept" is
the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire,
electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic,
mechanical, or other device.
A robo-call is send-only, so that action does not acquire anything. Then the question is whether Jarvis is a "device". There is a specific exemption from the definition of "electronic, mechanical, or other device":
(b) a hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal
hearing to not better than normal
Jarvis is not covered by (b). Part (a) exempts
any telephone or telegraph instrument...furnished to the
subscriber...being used by the subscriber...in the ordinary course of
its business... or (ii) being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service
which we can assume is not the case with Jarvis (the provider does not supply the device): Jarvis is a device, and Jarvis intercepts.
One way that such interception can legally be accomplished is via consent. At the federal level, it is sufficient that one party consents, though in some states, such as Washington, all parties must consent. Assume that only the federal law is relevant. The law regarding consent says
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not
acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication where such person is a party to the communication or
where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent
to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the
purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
A program is not a person, so a program cannot consent. However, if we go to the very top of the law, the prohibition starts:
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person
A program cannot violate the law (laws apply to people), at the moment.
If a program is deemed to be a legal person (either statutorily or by Supreme Court ruling), this all changes, but then Jarvis would have the capacity to consent (unless a program is deemed to be a person incapable of consent, but that would be silly because criminal law is predicated on the assumption that the actor "consented" to do the act). There is currently no statute which criminalizes creating and using Jarvis to make phone calls (imposes a limit on Jarvis's owner).