What’s in Ohio’s proposal banning AI personhood

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal.

An Ohio state lawmaker is trying to ensure people, businesses or developers are held accountable for what they do with artificial intelligence. In effect, his bill aims to outlaw “it wasn’t me, the AI did it” as a legal defense.

State Rep. Thaddeus Clagget, R-Licking County, gets there in part by barring artificial intelligence tools from any form of legal personhood.

Part of that is prohibiting Ohioans from marrying an AI partner, and that part earned Claggett some mockery on The Late Show last month. Host Stephen Colbert teased, “No wonder he’s against technology, his name is 200 years old.”

Claggett took the jokes in stride. But after a committee hearing Wednesday, he pulled out his phone to show a post on social media.

“Just yesterday, in Japan, we have a Japanese woman marries her AI boyfriend, the world’s first AI marriage,” he read. “It’s actually happened, okay?”

Claggett readily acknowledges that’s an “amusing” part of his legislation but says he’s trying to get his arms around something much bigger.

“So, the bill is, it’s trying to define what is sentient and what will forever and always be non-sentient,” Claggett said. “It makes no difference the ability of a donkey to speak, that does not make the donkey a human, okay?”

‘Imago Dei’

Claggett sees a collision in the not-too-distant future.

The western legal cannon is rooted in judging an individual’s responsibility before the court, but AI developers are busy creating tools that mimic an individual’s consciousness.

There’s a fundamental difference, he insists, between the “imago dei,” or in the image of God, nature of humanity and that of a synthetic intelligence — no matter how well developed.

And Claggett thinks Ohio law needs bright-line distinctions between the two before artificial intelligence is fully integrated into our daily lives.

“Our courts are not yet set up for the intrusion of fake systems that portray human activity,” he said. “We have to have the courts, in a clear (way) say it is the human who transgressed, not some machine that somebody hid behind.”

So yes, Ohio House Bill 469 bars AI systems from getting married, but it also prohibits them from holding a decision-making role within a company or owning property.

To ensure the courts can trace liability to a human actor, any direct or indirect harm caused by an AI tool is the responsibility of the user or the developer.

“Let’s be clear, however,” Claggett said, “we’re not gonna blame these companies, if they’re if their software is correct, we’re not gonna blame them for somebody misusing their software.”

“Again,” he added, “the human is responsible before the court.”

Changes Coming

Perhaps unsurprisingly a group called TechNet, which counts several leading AI firms among its members, opposes the legislation.

TechNet says the bill’s definition of AI is too broad, potentially roping in “any data-driven or rules-based software,” and its liability provisions pose “an existential risk” for developers.

“Existing product liability law already covers negligent or defective design,” TechNet claimed. “And HB 469’s new, AI-specific liability structure would only increase uncertainty and litigation risk.”

But a different group, The Alliance for Secure AI, praised the measure.

CEO Brendan Steinhauser said the bill’s liability language “close(s) a dangerous loophole where a corporation could deploy an AI system, have it cause financial or physical harm, and then claim it is not responsible for the actions of its “AI agent.’”

And jokes aside, the bill’s marriage prohibitions serve an important purpose by preventing an AI tool from making financial or medical decision for a human spouse.

Still, others who think the bill is commendable see room for improvement. Cory Scott who heads up the Center for Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University highlighted four changes lawmakers should consider.

Like TechNet, Scott said the AI definition is too broad. Spellcheck and GPS navigation would fit within the current version, for instance.

He also said ordering developers to prioritize safety is too abstract. It would be better to require disclosures about how companies modeled risk during development.

Unlike Technet, Scott explained software generally isn’t covered by product liability laws because it’s not considered tangible personal property.

If lawmakers tweak the language to include software, he admits that scope of liability would present a “significant burden” for any software company.

But it could be truly prohibitive for open-source developers, and he urged lawmakers to provide an exemption.

Lastly, Scott said lawmakers should use ‘consciousness’ rather than ‘sentience’ as the term of art in the bill.

Animals are sentient, he reasoned, “but we would not consider them to be rational decision makers on matters of importance.”

Consciousness on the other hand, conveys “autonomy, reflective thought, self-awareness,” he said.

Scott noted AI companies themselves will likely tout the level of consciousness their tools display in promotional materials.

To protect users as those tools become more lifelike and more ubiquitous, he suggested Ohio lawmakers consider provisions from The GUARD Act in the U.S. Senate.

Among its requirements, AI systems would have to regularly disclose their non-human status, which Scott said, “can help break the illusion of consciousness that can be created by extended use of chatbots.”

Claggett said he’s heard the feedback and amendments are coming.

In particular, he’s planning to work on the definition of artificial intelligence — “to tighten up that language on what we mean, what we don’t mean.”

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.