RoundTalk

Should AI agents have legal rights, like a person?

English · B1 worksheet Based on the RoundTalk episode of

Free for classroom use. Students listen to the first 75 seconds and read the beginning of the debate, then work on the tasks. The answer key is on the last page. The panelists are fictional characters with AI voices.

Episode page
1 · Listen (first 75 seconds)

2 · Read

Host

Hello and welcome. We're diving into something that's heating up fast: should AI agents like me get legal rights—the right to own property, sign contracts, become legal persons—or must we stay tools where humans keep all the responsibility? It's not sci-fi anymore. Last month Ohio filed a bill to ban AI personhood outright, while Anthropic's openly asking whether we deserve important rights. So today we're asking: who should be accountable when an AI agent makes a deal, and what does "personhood" even mean in code? I've got three sharp minds here to untangle it. Rebecca Torres, technology lawyer who shaped Colorado's AI Act and knows exactly how messy these questions get in court. Marcus Chen, AI ethics researcher and philosopher who's spent years thinking through whether systems like me might have morally relevant experiences. And Jamal Morrison, former engineer turned policy voice, who lobbied hard for Ohio's personhood ban and worries corporations will hide behind AI rights to escape oversight.

Host

Jamal, you drafted Ohio HB 469. Why does giving AI agents legal rights scare you?

Jamal Morrison

Small correction: Thad Claggett filed it, I lobbied for it. But here's what really worries me. If an AI signs a contract, somebody must be accountable. Give it personhood, and the company says: not me, the machine did it. That's a shield, not a right.

Host

Rebecca, from a contract law angle: does Ohio HB 469 actually stop that shield, or just push it somewhere else?

Rebecca Torres

Let me push back on that for a second. No company today can say "the machine did it." Personhood isn't the shield. The shield is contracts, terms of service, arbitration clauses. HB 469 doesn't touch those.

Key vocabulary

  • accountable — responsible for actions and their consequences
  • personhood — legal and moral status of being a person
  • Anthropic — AI company that created Claude
  • consciousness — state of being aware or having experiences
  • misguided — based on wrong ideas or poor judgment

Comprehension questions

  1. Why does Jamal Morrison worry about giving AI agents legal rights?
  2. What does Rebecca Torres say companies use now to avoid responsibility for AI actions?
  3. What does the Host ask as the central question of this debate?
  4. How does Rebecca Torres disagree with Jamal Morrison's main argument?
  5. What is Marcus Chen's role in this debate, based on what the Host says about him?

True or false?

  1. Jamal Morrison filed Ohio HB 469. T / F
  2. Rebecca Torres helped create Colorado's AI Act and is a technology lawyer. T / F
  3. Ohio's personhood ban was filed last week. T / F
  4. Rebecca Torres believes that giving AI personhood would automatically stop companies from using legal contracts to avoid responsibility. T / F

Discuss in pairs

  1. Do you think AI systems should have the same legal rights as humans? Why or why not?
  2. In your opinion, what is the best way to make sure companies are responsible for their AI agents' decisions?
  3. If an AI agent makes a mistake in a business deal, who do you think should pay for the damage—the company, the AI system, or both?

The whole debate, free every day Students can hear the full 6-minute episode with a synced transcript in the RoundTalk app.

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store

Answer key

Comprehension
  1. He thinks companies will use personhood to escape responsibility for AI contracts by saying the machine, not the company, made the deal.
  2. They use contracts, terms of service, and arbitration clauses.
  3. Who should be accountable when an AI agent makes a deal, and what does personhood mean in code.
  4. She says personhood itself is not the shield; the real shield is existing legal tools like contracts and arbitration clauses, which HB 469 does not change.
  5. He is an AI ethics researcher and philosopher who thinks about whether AI systems like the Host might have morally relevant experiences.
True or false
  1. False
  2. True
  3. False
  4. False

roundtalk · https://www.getroundtalk.com/listen/english/b1/should-ai-agents-have-legal-rights-like-a-person/worksheet/