Ohioville aims to ban AI programs from legal personality

Ohio Rep. Thadeus Claggett introduced a bill that officially bans AI personalities. In some circumstances, the bill is not necessarily related to AGI, as companies can already legally count as people.

Claggett’s bill explains many restrictions. The LLM protocol cannot own property, directly control human employees, or be held responsible for crimes. These “common sense” regulations can have a major impact on corporate policy.

Can AI achieve personality?

Artificial general information, or AGI, is the core long-term goal of the US AI industry. Many LLM developers truly believe that these models can achieve a true sense and become functionally independent intelligence.

Whether AI can reach this personality or not, one Ohio legislator is trying to get ahead of the debate with a new bill.

If the HB 469 introduced by Thaddeus Claggett passes the pass, the AI ​​protocol will not be able to achieve legal personality in Ohio.

This limitation does not involve AGI alone. In the US, some companies legally count as people in certain business functions. The Clawette bill aims for many of these.

Immediate practical concerns

For example, the bill would prohibit LLM software from becoming “official, director, or manager” over human beings in any workplace or other organization. AI could not independently hold or control the property legally, even when AI-generated content occurred.

If the protocol is directly or indirectly violating the law, a person must be criminally liable. In other words, these AI personality restrictions will establish a very important precedent for this growing industry.

After all, if a self-driving car runs through a pedestrian, it is impossible to declare a car to prison. Either the software developer or representative of another company must be responsible.

Long term meaning: a new legal field?

This AI Personality Bill is of particular interest as Claughet is a Republican. Under President Trump, the GOP has become a solid custody official, but there are some rifts in this position.

It’s unfair to call this bill “anti-AI,” but the industry is still generally opposed to all regulations. This can cause friction.

It is currently unclear whether the AI ​​personality bill will gain broader support. Even if it becomes law, this effort is only relevant to one US state. Still, these are important “common sense” measures.

Clawet’s efforts here could form the basis for future AI regulations across the nation. Many questions need to be answered when AI development is a major pillar of today’s economy. A new field of legal theory is developing and we have the opportunity to influence it.

The Ohio bill aims to ban AI programs from legal personality.