Ohio Congressman Thaddeus Claggett introduced a bill formally prohibiting AI personhood. In some situations, corporations can legally count as persons already, so this bill isn’t necessarily related to AGI. Claggett’s bill describes a number of restrictions: LLM protocols can’t own property, directly manage human employees, be held liable for a crime, and more. These “common sense” regulations could significantly impact corporate policies. Can AI Achieve Personhood? Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, is a core long-term goal in the US AI industry. Many LLM developers genuinely believe that these models can achieve true sentience, functionally becoming independent intelligences. Whether or not AI can ever reach personhood like this, one Ohio lawmaker is trying to preempt the discussion with a new bill: If HB 469, introduced by Thaddeus Claggett, passes, AI protocols could never achieve legal personhood in the state of Ohio. This restriction wouldn’t only concern AGI; in the US, some corporations legally count as persons for certain business functions. Claggett’s bill takes aim at many of these. Immediate Practical Concerns For example, this bill would prohibit LLM software from becoming “any officer, director, or manager” over human beings at any place of work or other organization. An AI could not legally hold or control any property independently, even in the event of AI-generated content. If a protocol directly or indirectly violates the law, a human being must bear criminal liability. In other words, these AI personhood restrictions would establish crucially important precedents for this growing industry. After all, if a self-driving car runs over a pedestrian, it’s not feasible to sentence an automobile to prison. Either the software developers or other company representatives would need to take responsibility. Long-Term Implications: A New Legal Field? This AI personhood bill is particularly interesting because Claggett is a Republican. Under Trump’s Presidency, the GOP has become a staunchly pro-crypto party, but some cracks have appeared in this position. It’s unfair to call this bill “anti-AI,” but nonetheless, the industry generally opposes all regulation. This may cause some friction. It’s currently unclear whether this AI personhood bill will win broader support. Even if it does become a law, the effort only concerns one US state. Still, these are crucial “common sense” measures. Claggett’s efforts here could form the basis of future AI regulation across the entire country. If AI development is going to be the main pillar of today’s economy, then we need to answer a lot of questions. A new field of legal theory is developing, and we have the chance to influence it.Ohio Congressman Thaddeus Claggett introduced a bill formally prohibiting AI personhood. In some situations, corporations can legally count as persons already, so this bill isn’t necessarily related to AGI. Claggett’s bill describes a number of restrictions: LLM protocols can’t own property, directly manage human employees, be held liable for a crime, and more. These “common sense” regulations could significantly impact corporate policies. Can AI Achieve Personhood? Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, is a core long-term goal in the US AI industry. Many LLM developers genuinely believe that these models can achieve true sentience, functionally becoming independent intelligences. Whether or not AI can ever reach personhood like this, one Ohio lawmaker is trying to preempt the discussion with a new bill: If HB 469, introduced by Thaddeus Claggett, passes, AI protocols could never achieve legal personhood in the state of Ohio. This restriction wouldn’t only concern AGI; in the US, some corporations legally count as persons for certain business functions. Claggett’s bill takes aim at many of these. Immediate Practical Concerns For example, this bill would prohibit LLM software from becoming “any officer, director, or manager” over human beings at any place of work or other organization. An AI could not legally hold or control any property independently, even in the event of AI-generated content. If a protocol directly or indirectly violates the law, a human being must bear criminal liability. In other words, these AI personhood restrictions would establish crucially important precedents for this growing industry. After all, if a self-driving car runs over a pedestrian, it’s not feasible to sentence an automobile to prison. Either the software developers or other company representatives would need to take responsibility. Long-Term Implications: A New Legal Field? This AI personhood bill is particularly interesting because Claggett is a Republican. Under Trump’s Presidency, the GOP has become a staunchly pro-crypto party, but some cracks have appeared in this position. It’s unfair to call this bill “anti-AI,” but nonetheless, the industry generally opposes all regulation. This may cause some friction. It’s currently unclear whether this AI personhood bill will win broader support. Even if it does become a law, the effort only concerns one US state. Still, these are crucial “common sense” measures. Claggett’s efforts here could form the basis of future AI regulation across the entire country. If AI development is going to be the main pillar of today’s economy, then we need to answer a lot of questions. A new field of legal theory is developing, and we have the chance to influence it.