In a move that highlights the growing complexities surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), an Ohio state lawmaker has introduced a groundbreaking bill aimed at firmly establishing the legal boundaries between humans and AI systems. Representative Thaddeus Claggett, a Republican from Licking County and chair of the Ohio House Technology and Innovation Committee, has put forward House Bill 469, legislation that seeks to prevent AI from being treated or recognized as persons under the law. This bill not only clarifies that AI systems are "nonsentient entities," but also explicitly bans marriages between humans and AI, or between AI systems themselves.
The core motivation behind Claggett’s proposal is to maintain human authority and decision-making control over AI technologies as they become increasingly sophisticated and human-like in behavior. While AI advancements continue to blur the lines between human interaction and machine simulation, Claggett emphasizes the necessity of drawing an unambiguous legal line to prevent machines from acquiring rights or responsibilities traditionally reserved for people. "We see AI as having tremendous potential as a tool, but also tremendous potential to cause harm," Claggett explained. "We want to prevent that by establishing guardrails and a legal framework before these developments can outpace regulation and bad actors start exploiting legal loopholes."
If enacted, House Bill 469 would prohibit AI systems from owning property, managing financial accounts, or serving as corporate executives. The bill makes it clear that AI cannot hold legal rights or obligations, ensuring that critical decisions—especially those impacting human lives—remain under human oversight. One particularly notable provision bans marriage involving AI, not because such unions are imminent, but to prevent AI from gaining legal powers typically associated with spouses, such as power of attorney or the ability to make financial and medical decisions on behalf of a human partner.
The bill also addresses liability concerns by stipulating that if an AI causes harm or makes an error, responsibility would rest squarely with the humans who own, develop, or deploy the system. This approach precludes individuals from blaming AI systems themselves for damages or mistakes, reinforcing the idea that humans must remain accountable for the technology they create and use.
The timing of this legislation reflects the rapid proliferation of AI technologies across a wide range of sectors. AI now contributes to tasks like writing reports, generating artwork, and analyzing large datasets with remarkable speed and accuracy. Ohio, for instance, has begun requiring schools to create policies regarding AI use in classrooms, and the state is becoming a hub for AI infrastructure with the construction of major data centers. This surge in AI adoption has prompted lawmakers to consider the legal implications before the technology evolves beyond current regulatory frameworks.
Adding urgency to these concerns is the increasing emotional connection some users develop with AI. A survey conducted by the Florida-based marketing firm Fractl found that 22 percent of users reported forming emotional bonds with chatbots, with 3 percent considering an AI as a romantic partner. Another 16 percent of respondents questioned whether the AI they interacted with was truly sentient. This emotional attachment complicates the social and legal understanding of AI, raising fears that people might begin attributing feelings or intent to machines, thus blurring the boundary between human experience and artificial simulation.
Claggett underscores that the bill’s primary objective is to protect human agency. He warns against allowing AI to supplant humans as decision-makers, especially in sensitive areas such as finances, healthcare, and legal matters. "We want the human to be liable for any misconduct, and for there to be no question regarding the legal status of AI, no matter how sophisticated, in Ohio law," he said. The legislation aims to ensure that AI remains a tool rather than an autonomous actor capable of independent legal or social standing.
Supporters of the bill view it as an essential safeguard for society, maintaining that technology should never acquire the same legal footing as humans. By codifying AI’s nonsentient status, Ohio seeks to prevent potential abuses and confusion over AI’s role in critical human affairs. The legislation would reinforce that AI cannot make independent choices with legally binding consequences, preserving human oversight in marriage, property ownership, corporate governance, and other areas traditionally governed by personhood.
However, the bill has its critics. Some argue that such legislation may be premature, addressing hypothetical issues rather than existing problems. They caution that overly broad restrictions could stifle AI research and innovation within Ohio, potentially putting the state at a disadvantage in a global race for AI development. Despite these concerns, most agree that the conversation about AI’s legal status is necessary