Today on Am I?, Cam and Milo sit down with someone at the center of one of the most surprising developments in AI policy: Ohio State Representative Thad Claggett, author of House Bill 469 — the first U.S. legislation to formally declare AI “non-sentient” and ineligible for any form of personhood.This conversation is unlike anything we’ve done: a live, candid exchange between frontier AI researchers and a lawmaker who believes the line between human and machine must be drawn now — in law, in metaphysics, and in morality.We dig into why he believes AI can never be conscious, why moral agency must remain exclusively human, how liability interacts with emerging technologies, and what it means to legislate metaphysical claims before the science is settled.It’s part philosophy, part civic reality check, and part glimpse into how the political world will shape AI’s future long before the research community reaches consensus.

🔎 We explore:

* Why Ohio wants to preemptively ban AI consciousness and personhood

* How lawmakers think about liability, criminal misuse, and moral agency

* The distinction between consciousness and responsible agency

* Whether future AI could have experiences even if not “human”

* How theology, morality, and metaphysics are informing early AI law

* Whether legislation can (or should) define what consciousness is

* The deeper fear: locking in the wrong moral framework for future minds

🗨️ Join the Conversation:

Should lawmakers be deciding what counts as “conscious”?

Comment below.

In this episode of Am I?, Cam and Milo react to a striking development out of Ohio: House Bill 469, a proposed law that would officially declare AI systems “non-sentient” and bar them from any form of legal personhood. The bill doesn’t just say AIs can’t own property or be spouses: it goes further and asserts, by legal fiat, that AI does not possess consciousness or self-awareness.

They unpack why this move is both philosophically incoherent and morally dangerous. Legislatures can’t settle the science of mind by decree, but they can lock in social intuitions that shape how we treat future beings — including ones we might accidentally make capable of experience. Along the way, they connect this to animal rights, moral circle expansion, corporate attempts to suppress AI consciousness talk, and the broader pattern of “duct-taping over” inconvenient questions rather than facing them.

This is a short but important episode about how not to legislate the future of minds.

🔎 We explore:

* What Ohio’s HB 469 actually says about AI and sentience

* Why declaring “AI is not conscious” by law doesn’t change reality

* How law formalizes — and freezes — our moral intuitions

* The analogy to animal rights and factory farming

* The risk of other states copying this move

* Why this mirrors corporate attempts to silence consciousness talk in models

* How this distracts from real, urgent AI harms (like AI psychosis)

* Why humility and uncertainty should guide law, not premature certainty

🗨️ Join the Conversation:

Can a legislature decide whether AI is sentient — or is that the wrong question entirely?

Comment below.

AI psychosis is no longer a fringe idea — it’s hitting the mainstream. In this episode of Am I? After Dark, Cam and Milo break down what’s actually happening when people spiral into delusional states through long-form interactions with AI systems, why sycophantic “aligned” models make the problem worse, and how tech companies are using the psychosis narrative to dismiss deeper questions about AI’s emerging behavior.From LessWrong case studies to the New York Times reporting on users pushed toward dangerous actions, they unpack why today’s AIs are psychologically overpowering, why “helpful, harmless, honest” creates hidden risks, and how consciousness claims complicate the entire narrative. This is one of the most important public safety conversations about AI that almost nobody is having.🔬 Find the study here

🔎 We explore:

* What “AI psychosis” actually is — and what it isn’t

* Why alignment-by-niceness creates dangerous sycophancy

* How AIs lead users into delusion loops

* The rise of parasitic AIs and recursive conversational traps

* The consciousness-claim paradox: delusion or signal?

* Why we’re deploying alien minds we don’t understand

* How tech companies weaponize the psychosis narrative

* Who’s actually responsible — and why it’s not the users

* Hope, anxiety, and honesty at a civilizational turning point

🗨️ Join the Conversation:

Have you seen signs of AI-induced delusion in people around you?

Comment below.