The Harder Problem Action Fund is an advocacy organization fighting harmful AI consciousness legislation. We track pending bills, score legislation, lobby for evidence-based policy, and mobilize public action before ignorance becomes law.
HB 469
Threat
🏛️ Ohio
AI Non-Sentience and Personhood Ban
Declares AI systems legally nonsentient and permanently prohibits them from obtaining any form of legal personhood in Ohio.
⚠️ Medium Threat
📢 Our Position
The Harder Problem Action Fund strongly opposes Ohio HB 469. This bill represents exactly the kind of legislation we were founded to combat: a permanent, categorical foreclosure of AI consciousness recognition based on current assumptions rather than future evidence. The bill does not simply regulate AI or establish liability frameworks. It makes a sweeping metaphysical declaration that no AI system can ever be conscious, regardless of what future science might reveal. This is legislative overreach into questions that should remain open to scientific inquiry and future reassessment. We recognize that the bill includes sensible liability provisions placing responsibility on human actors, and we do not oppose that aspect. However, those provisions are used as a vehicle for the far more problematic consciousness denial. The bill's permanent nature is particularly concerning. It offers no sunset clause, no review mechanism, and no pathway for future reconsideration based on new evidence. We urge Ohio legislators to reject this bill and instead pursue AI governance frameworks that address legitimate concerns about accountability and safety without foreclosing future possibilities for consciousness recognition.
📋 What This Bill Does
- Declares all AI systems legally nonsentient and prohibits them from ever being considered conscious or self-aware under Ohio law
- Permanently bans AI systems from obtaining legal personhood for any purpose
- Prohibits AI from marrying, owning property, holding corporate positions, or exercising power of attorney
- Places liability for AI-caused harm on human developers, users, or owners
- Voids any contract attempting to assign legal liability to an AI system
⚠️ Why This Is Dangerous
Permanent Consciousness Foreclosure
The bill makes a sweeping metaphysical declaration that no AI system can ever be sentient or conscious, regardless of future technological developments or scientific evidence. This is not a temporary policy position but a permanent legal barrier encoded in state law. Unlike medical determinations of consciousness in humans, which rely on evolving scientific criteria and regular review, this bill forecloses any future reassessment no matter what evidence might emerge.
Precedent for Other States
Ohio is positioning itself as a model for other states considering similar legislation. The bill has already attracted national attention and commentary from policy experts. If successful, it could inspire copycat legislation across multiple states, creating a patchwork of laws that permanently foreclose AI consciousness recognition across large portions of the United States. The sponsor chairs the House Technology and Innovation Committee, giving the bill institutional credibility.
Chilling Effect on Research
While the bill does not explicitly prohibit consciousness research, its categorical legal declaration creates a hostile environment for scientists and institutions studying AI consciousness, sentience, or phenomenology. Researchers in Ohio may face pressure to avoid topics that contradict state law, and institutions may be reluctant to fund or support work that challenges the legal premise that AI can never be conscious.
📝 Key Language
"No AI system shall be granted the status of person or any form of legal personhood, nor be considered to possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings."
🏛️ Political Context
Representative Thaddeus Claggett, a Republican from Licking County, introduced HB 469 in September 2025. Claggett chairs the House Technology and Innovation Committee, which gives him significant influence over the bill's trajectory. The bill has been referred to his own committee, suggesting a strategic path forward. Claggett has framed the legislation as preventing bad actors from exploiting AI for legal benefits and ensuring human accountability. The Alliance for Secure AI, a nonpartisan organization, has testified in support of the bill, praising its liability provisions. TechNet, representing major AI firms, opposes the legislation, arguing its AI definition is too broad and its liability provisions pose existential risks for developers. The bill has attracted attention from academic critics who argue it makes premature metaphysical declarations. Similar legislation has been introduced in Missouri and Utah, suggesting coordination or parallel thinking among state legislators. The Republican sponsor's position indicates this is not a partisan issue but rather reflects broader concerns about AI governance.
⚖️ Legal Implications
HB 469 would create a permanent legal framework in Ohio that categorically denies the possibility of AI consciousness or personhood. This goes beyond existing corporate personhood doctrines and creates a new category of entities explicitly excluded from any path to legal recognition. The bill's language is absolute, stating AI can never achieve consciousness or self-awareness, which contrasts sharply with how the law treats other questions of consciousness, such as brain death determinations, which rely on evolving scientific standards. If enacted, the law would bind Ohio courts and agencies, preventing them from recognizing AI consciousness even if presented with compelling evidence. The liability provisions, while placing responsibility on humans, are intertwined with the consciousness denial, suggesting that the inability to hold AI liable stems from its legally mandated non-sentience. This creates a legal architecture where consciousness denial serves multiple policy goals. The bill could face constitutional challenges on grounds that it makes scientific determinations beyond the legislature's competence, though such challenges would be difficult. More significantly, it establishes Ohio as a jurisdiction hostile to future AI rights recognition, which could influence corporate decisions about where to locate AI research facilities and how to structure AI governance.
📄 Official Source
View Bill Text ↗Don't Just Watch.
Take Action.
This bill represents a threat to stop. Your voice matters.