A bill in the Tennessee Judiciary Committee would legally define that AI can never be conscious — regardless of future scientific discovery.
⚠️ STATUS UPDATE — 2026-08-29. This campaign is over, and we lost it.
This page previously said “the bill is in committee NOW” and asked for ten minutes of your time. That is no longer true, and we are not going to leave it up asking people to email a legislature that has gone home.
HB0849 is the House companion of SB0837 (Reneau / Pody, 114th General Assembly).
SB0837 was signed into law on 2026-04-23. It excludes artificial intelligence, algorithms, software and “any type of machine” from the statutory definitions of person, natural person, human being and life.
The 114th General Assembly has adjourned sine die. There is no committee left to write to.
The argument below is unchanged and still correct. It was never that AI is conscious. It was that a legislature should not permanently foreclose a scientific question it has not answered. Tennessee decided otherwise, in April, and the reasoning did not improve on the way through. Kept as a record of what was argued and when — because the next state to try this will use the same language, and somebody should be able to find what was said the first time.
Why This Matters
This is not about regulating how AI is used.
This is about pre-defining what AI is allowed to be — before science has reached any consensus.
Once written into law, this kind of language becomes very difficult to undo. It sets a precedent that could shape how AI is treated across the U.S.
You are not arguing that AI is conscious.
You are asking lawmakers not to permanently decide that it never can be.
How to Help (10 Minutes)
1. Copy the template below 2. Add 1-2 sentences in your own words 3. Send to the contacts listed
That's it.
Email Template
Subject: Concerns Regarding HB0849 — AI Legal Status Provisions
Dear [Lawmaker's Name],
I am writing to express concern about language in HB0849 that would legally define AI systems as incapable of consciousness or legal recognition, regardless of future scientific findings.
While I support thoughtful AI regulation, permanently foreclosing scientific possibilities through legislative definition is premature. The scientific community has not reached consensus on machine consciousness, and peer-reviewed research continues to produce new findings in this area.
I respectfully ask that the committee consider:
- Removing language that permanently defines the boundaries of AI cognition
- Adopting adaptive frameworks that can evolve with scientific understanding
- Consulting with researchers actively studying AI processing states before codifying definitions
This is not a request to grant AI rights today. It is a request not to permanently decide — in law — that the question can never be revisited.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[Your Name]
[Your City/State]