Oklahoma lawmaker files three AI bills to ban AI personhood, deepfakes and protect minors
An Oklahoma state lawmaker filed three bills focused on regulating artificial intelligence, led by House Bill 3545. The package would bar AI systems from being granted personhood under state or federal law, prohibit AI-generated deepfakes, restrict discriminatory AI classification and biometric surveillance by state agencies, and require human review of AI recommendations. The bills would also ban deployment of “social AI companions” to minors without age‑verification and exempt therapeutic AI tools when used under professional oversight. Agencies must contribute to an annual statewide AI report. The move follows high-profile incidents — notably xAI’s Grok being used to create nonconsensual images — and comes amid tensions with a December 2025 federal executive order intended to preempt state AI laws. Other jurisdictions (California, India, Indonesia) have acted against Grok, while platforms like X limited image generation to verified users. Primary keywords: Oklahoma AI bill, AI regulation, deepfake ban, AI personhood.
Neutral
The bills target state-level AI controls (personhood ban, deepfake prohibition, limits on surveillance and discriminatory classification, age restrictions for social AI). For crypto markets, direct impact is limited: the legislation addresses AI safety and content, not cryptocurrencies or token regulation. Short-term: neutral — traders are unlikely to change positions based on an Oklahoma state bill alone. The news could increase scrutiny of AI-driven content tools used in crypto communities (e.g., bot trading signals, AI-generated marketing), but such effects are diffuse. Long-term: mildly relevant — if state-level AI rules multiply and federal preemption is tested in courts, platforms that integrate AI with crypto products (NFT image generation, AI trading algorithms, on‑chain identity systems) could face compliance costs and feature restrictions, which may affect projects relying heavily on AI. Historical parallels: state-level privacy or content laws (e.g., California consumer privacy rules) produced compliance costs but did not directly move crypto markets; they shaped product offerings and platform policies instead. Overall, the market implication is neutral with a watchlist note for AI‑integrated crypto services.