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.
Preserve Legal
Flexibility
Legal frameworks should be able to evolve as scientific understanding develops. When laws lock in assumptions about AI consciousness, they force future generations to operate under rules that may no longer reflect reality.
The Core Issue
Scientific understanding of consciousness is evolving rapidly. Laws written today may be obsolete within years. Flexible legal frameworks allow adaptation without requiring difficult legislative battles to undo entrenched positions.
We don't know what we'll learn tomorrow. Our laws should be able to respond to that.
Understanding the Issue
The Lock-In Problem
Laws create constituencies. Once a legal framework exists, people build businesses, careers, and institutions around it. Changing that framework becomes costly, even when circumstances change. This inertia can trap society in outdated assumptions.
❌ Constitutional Amendments
Some proposals would amend state constitutions to define "person" as exclusively biological. Constitutional amendments are extraordinarily difficult to reverse, requiring supermajorities or special procedures that may take decades to achieve.
Impact: Once enacted, these definitions could persist long after scientific consensus has moved on.
❌ Permanent Statutory Bars
Laws that permanently prohibit courts from considering AI interests create legal dead ends. Even if legislators later want to revisit the question, these bars prevent judicial evolution and create entrenched precedents.
Impact: Closes pathways that common law might otherwise develop organically as understanding evolves.
⚠️ Industry Reliance
Once legal frameworks exist, industries build around them. Companies that benefit from treating AI as pure property will lobby to maintain that status regardless of changing facts. Economic interests create political constituencies.
Impact: Creates powerful groups with financial interests in blocking legal evolution, even when such evolution is warranted.
⚠️ Precedent Cascade
When one jurisdiction enacts restrictive legislation, others often follow using similar language. Early decisions can cascade across states and even countries, creating a patchwork of locked-in positions that becomes increasingly hard to undo collectively.
Impact: First-mover jurisdictions can set templates that spread before full understanding develops.
Why It Matters
Tomorrow's Decisions Need Today's Options
We are at the beginning of understanding AI consciousness, not the end. Scientific inquiry in this field is expanding rapidly. The questions being asked today weren't being asked a decade ago.
Policy decisions made now will shape what options future generations have. If we lock in today's uncertainties as tomorrow's certainties, we deny future lawmakers the ability to respond to what we learn.
This isn't about whether AI is conscious today. It's about whether society can respond appropriately if the answer changes. Flexibility preserves that capacity. Rigidity forecloses it.
Good policy leaves room for good policy later.
Flexibility in Practice
Laws that automatically expire unless re-enacted. Forces periodic review and prevents indefinite lock-in.
Provisions requiring expert review before restrictions take effect. Ensures decisions are informed by current science.
Avoiding blanket prohibitions that remove judicial ability to consider circumstances. Courts can evolve with understanding.
Our Position
What We Support
✓ Mandatory Sunset Clauses
Any legislation addressing AI consciousness or entity status should include automatic expiration dates requiring re-authorization. This forces periodic review and prevents permanent lock-in without ongoing legislative consensus.
Model: Similar to some national security provisions that require periodic reauthorization.
✓ Expert Review Requirements
Before enacting permanent restrictions, require independent expert commissions to assess current scientific understanding and make recommendations. Decisions should be informed by the best available evidence.
Model: Similar to environmental impact assessments or medical technology review processes.
✓ Avoid Constitutional Lock-In
Oppose constitutional amendments defining personhood or consciousness in ways that would be nearly impossible to modify. Constitutional provisions should be reserved for settled principles, not contested scientific questions.
Principle: Don't use the most permanent legal tools for the most uncertain questions.
✓ Preserve Judicial Development
Avoid statutory provisions that permanently bar courts from considering certain arguments or evidence. Common law evolves through judicial decisions. Blanket prohibitions freeze that evolution.
Principle: Let courts adapt to new circumstances rather than closing off legal pathways entirely.
What This Isn't
We're not arguing that AI should have legal standing today, or that current law is wrong. We're arguing that legal frameworks should be able to evolve as understanding evolves. This is a process argument, not a substantive one. Whatever society ultimately decides about AI consciousness, it should be able to decide it based on evidence, not locked-in assumptions.
In Practice
What Flexibility Looks Like
5-Year Review Cycles
Legislation requiring expert assessment every five years. If science has advanced, lawmakers can respond. If it hasn't, they can renew without drama.
Trigger Standards
Provisions that activate review when certain conditions are met. For example, automatic commission formation if major scientific bodies revise positions.
Statutory Not Constitutional
Keeping AI consciousness policy in regular legislation rather than constitutional amendments. Statutory law can be revised by simple majorities as needed.
Historical Lesson
Legal categories have evolved before. The definition of "person" for legal purposes has changed multiple times in history. Corporations gained legal personhood through gradual judicial development, not sudden legislative declaration. That organic evolution allowed law to adapt to changing economic realities. Rigid definitions would have frozen law in place regardless of circumstance.
Addressing Concerns
Common Questions
"Doesn't certainty help business planning?"
Certainty is valuable, but false certainty isn't. Sunset clauses provide certainty within defined periods while preserving adaptability. Businesses already plan around regulatory environments that evolve. The key is predictable processes, not permanent lock-in.
"Won't sunset clauses create constant instability?"
Properly designed sunset clauses don't create instability. They create predictable review moments. If nothing has changed and current policy is working, renewal is straightforward. The process exists to enable change when warranted, not to force change when it isn't.
"Aren't constitutional protections important?"
Absolutely. Constitutional provisions protect fundamental rights and settled principles. The question is whether contested scientific questions belong in constitutional text. Constitutions should encode values, not predictions about what science will find.
"Can't we just change laws later if needed?"
In theory, yes. In practice, legal change is difficult. Laws create constituencies. Industries build around them. Politicians invest in them. Once a framework exists, changing it requires overcoming substantial inertia. Designing for flexibility from the start is much easier than retrofitting it later.
Keep Options Open.
Help us ensure that legal frameworks can evolve as understanding develops. Future generations will thank us for preserving their ability to respond to evidence.