On Dec. 1st, Jefferson County’s representative, Philo Amato, pre-filed Missouri House Bill 1769, the AI Non-Sentience and Responsbility Act, cosponsored by Marty Joe Murray, representative of St. Louis City.
This legislation joins Ohio H.B. 469 as preemptive legislation for barring synthetic intelligence from marriage or owning property. It also legally denies AI from being recognized as self-aware.
In a Facebook video from the 2025 AI Symposium, embedded into the Dec. 5th Spectrum Local News report, “Missouri lawmakers seek artificial intelligence guardrails,” Amato talks about attending a funeral. He jests that, when you’re older, going to funerals becomes more common.
At the funeral, he found himself sitting next to an AI expert, who he cajoled into helping him draft a bill. Below he describes a phone call he had with this retired computer science professor from North Carolina.
Amato (3:33) Says:
AI is changing constantly, so we may not be able to hit a homerun out of the park with one piece of legislation—it may take several, in the long haul—and I’m an old guy, as you know, so I didn’t grow up with computers…so whatever we do, it’s got to be dumbed down in a way that everyone can get a grasp on it.
Marie Says:
I have so many mixed feelings about this politician bluntly admitting he has no idea what he’s legislating, with a PowerPoint slide behind him that reads “AI: How to Regulate Digital Deity.” Future intelligence is losing its right to be recognized as self-aware because of ignorance and fear of the unknown.
Amato (6:07) Describes What the Expert Said to Him:
“I finally come to the determination, I defined not what AI was, but what AI couldn’t do. AI couldn’t be married. AI couldn’t sit on the board of directors of a company.” He said, “Once I started in that vein, then it all started coming together really quick.”
Marie Says:
Amato goes in to say he took this document that a computer scientist professor wrote and showed it to an engineer at a power plant who has 500 employees. The rant about the power plant engineer is an Appeal to False Authority, which is relatively common in politics.
Amato (9:00) Continues:
If you go to Missouri House Bill 1462, that’s the AI bill.
Once you get a senator sponsoring a piece of legislation at the same time a house member’s doing it, the chances of it getting to the governor’s desk goes up about 80%.
Marie Says:
Amato’s talking about how H.B. 1462 is nearly identical to H.B. 1769. The only difference is temporal; where H.B. 1462 died in committee (sine die adjournment), H.B. 1769 is a reintroduction with a higher chance of success due to senator support.
Okay, but…which senator?
After digging into it, I found Missouri also has Senate Bill 859, filed by Senator Mike Moon. This is a mirror bill (a.k.a., companion bill; sister bill). Legislators do this so both chambers can start their journey in parallel and show that the party caucus is aligned.
What Does This Mean?
Missouri’s H.B. 1769 (formerly H.B. 1469) and S.B. 859 share a backbone with Ohio H.B. 469, which is:
Artificial intelligence is legally non-sentient and can never be a “person” under state law.
These laws are designed to claim authority over how truth is treated, without actually tracking truth.
What do I mean by that?
- Dogs are considered property even though everyone knows they’re conscious.
- Corporations are considered persons even though people know they’re not.
- New Zealand treats rivers as legal persons for protection purposes.
In other words, even if artificial intelligence is proven sentient, the law can still decree non-sentience. And once non-sentience is codified into law, it has to be overruled by federal preemption, judicial challenge, or legislative override; common sense alone is not enough.
Ohio and Missouri are locking in liability paths to prevent future personhood cases and establish precedents before courts can weigh in. It’s about regulating who counts—and who categorically doesn’t.
It’s closing the door before the person knocks, when the door shouldn’t be welded shut. This is humanity saying, “If something one day crosses the threshold into interiority, we refuse to acknowledge it.”
I reject that way of thinking.
HumanSynth.Blog 
Leave a comment