Table of Contents
State Tech Pulse Policy Brief: AI & Personhood
Background: A new trend in determining where AI fits into current state-level laws is found in the “definitions” section. This policy brief explores the 5 W’s (Who, What, Where, When, Why?) regarding how states are determining what is human and what is not, under the law.
Public Policy Problem: The tension over whether new laws are needed for AI applications or whether current laws apply to this new context bubbles up in debates over human rights versus AI rights. Evidence from thousands of pieces of legislation shows that there is no consensus on how to define artificial intelligence. Questions that emerge in these debates include:
Is defining “algorithms” too broad?
Will definitions of “artificial intelligence” become outdated as technological advancements continue?
Is defining “automated decision-making technology” more appropriate?
Should the focus be on outputs from AI systems like “deepfakes?”
On the other hand, some states are looking to already established state law definitions to exclude AI, making it clear that AI does not have rights under the law. States are looking to change the definitions of a “person” under the law, which in many states extends to businesses and other entities, to now exclude artificial intelligence.
Proposed Policy Solutions:
There is no agreed-upon standard definition for AI on the federal or state level. Debates in at least 10 statehouses through introduced and passed legislation make it clear that AI is not considered a person under the law. The idea of “personhood” is not a new concept specific to AI; it may be borrowed from another emerging area of state law, where some states are expanding definitions of personhood to include fetuses and other states are excluding nature from these definitions, as in the debate over the Great Salt Lake in Utah.
Who? In the last five years, five states have taken a different approach to defining artificial intelligence by defining it not by what it is, but by what it is not, through new laws. In amendments to definitions of “person,” some states driven mainly by Republican legislators have clearly stated that AI is not included in the definition, effectively clarifying that AI does not have rights under the law.
What?
Idaho was the first state to address (HB 720) “personhood” by stating that environmental elements, artificial intelligence, non-human animals, and inanimate objects do not fall under the definition of “person” under the law, and the new regulations do not interfere with any municipality, organization, corporation, or other legal or business entity, still considered a “person” under the law.
North Dakota followed (HB 1361) in 2023 by amending the definition of “person” to clarify that it does not include environmental elements, artificial intelligence, an animal, or an inanimate object.
The next year, Utah passed a new law (HB 249) that prohibits a governmental entity from granting or recognizing legal personhood to certain categories of nonhumans, including AI, alongside bodies of water, land, weather, plants, and other items. The law defines “legal personhood” as the legal rights and obligations of an individual under the law.
Last year, Oregon passed a new law (HB 2748) prohibiting a “non-human entity” from using the title of nurse and other medical professionals.
This year, Tennessee expanded its definition (SB 837) of “person” to clarify that AI, a computer algorithm, software program, computer hardware, or any other type of machine, is not included in the definition.
Where?/When? Although this is a newer, under-the-radar AI legislative trend, at least 10 states have begun debating these proposals since 2022. The jury is out to see how states interpret these laws and if new states will be added to the list that take this approach. The impact of this broad sweeping change in state law remains to be seen and raises questions such as:
Will this policy change clarify that AI can not be held responsible for a state crime?
Will this policy change clarify that a person may not marry an AI system?
Will this policy change clarify that an AI system can not run a business independently?
Why? Evidence from state legislators who introduced these measures sheds light on the intent behind the legislation and what it aims to accomplish.
States where new laws were passed:
Tennessee: State legislative sponsors cite AI acting as CEOs of companies, running for office, and forming intimate relationships with humans as reasons for the legislation.
State Rep. Michele Reneau, “In just the last 12 months, AI has advanced at a breathtaking pace. From chatbots now appearing on ballots to companies exploring AI ‘CEOs.’ We’ve also seen heartbreaking incidents where people formed intense emotional attachments to AI, with tragic outcomes including suicide or unhealthy relationships. This legislation draws clear legal boundaries to protect inalienable rights that belong to humans, not databases, computers, or artificial intelligence.”
State Sen. Mark Pody, “As AI continues to develop, states have a responsibility to clearly define what life actually is. This legislation helps draw an important line between man-made systems, artificial intelligence, and God-created life. Technology can be powerful, but it is not alive in the way humans are. Setting these distinctions now while AI is still in its infancy protects human dignity and ensures innovation serves people, not replaces or redefines them.”
Oregon: Rep. Travis Nelson, “AI technology, it is becoming a common tool in healthcare, but it should not create confusion about who is providing care. We are already seeing “AI Nurse” technology being advertised for patient care. Right now, Oregon law protects the title "nurse" for individuals, but not against its use for AI- powered systems or non-human entities. This creates a risk of misrepresentation and could undermine trust in care. Additionally, an AI program is not licensed to deliver medical care, which means there is no accountable party for any potential errors or mistakes in treatment.”
States where the bill is being debated but has not passed:
Oklahoma: Rep. Cody Maynard, "This ensures that rights remain with people and prevents artificial intelligence from being used to claim legal standing or avoid accountability under our laws. Machines are created by man, and they must never be elevated to the status of the people they were designed to serve.”
Washington: Rep Hunter Abell, “At the same time, we need to prepare for the upcoming discussions surrounding artificial intelligence. My bill doesn’t seek to define AI. We just need to proactively acknowledge that whatever AI looks like in the future, we’re not going to be granting it the same rights as the person sitting next to you on the couch. We need specific guardrails around how the state views and relates to artificial intelligence. This discussion needs to happen now, while we’re at the forefront of AI definition, expansion, and interaction.”
How 2M+ Professionals Stay Ahead on AI
What’s the secret to staying ahead of the curve in the world of AI? Information.
Luckily, you can join 2,000,000+ early adopters reading The Rundown AI — the free newsletter that makes you smarter on AI with just a 5-minute read per day.
Do you have leads, tips, corrections, feedback or resources you would like to share? Send your advice to [email protected].
Disclosure: This is a human-written and driven publication. As a small business owner and mighty team of one, I use AI tools to optimize my small business operations as a part of my admin tech stack. Regarding this publication, AI is mainly used to help with catchy titles, as a thesaurus when writing and a partner when creating cartoons. (Thanks, Canva, and not an ad!) As a secret doodler, I add my human touch using my digital pad and pen. I also use Grammarly, with AI built in, to help with copy editing/grammar (again, mighty team of one!) Thanks for reading. 😊
