Can Human Line Project and Anthropic defeat OpenAI in AI psychosis lawsuits?

By David Stéphen
May is Mental Health Awareness Month for 2026. If those that are suing OpenAI for AI psychosis and delusion can prove in court that artificial intelligence is a digital mind or that AI has some form of awareness, it is likely that OpenAI would lose those cases. While Google also got sued, Google with character.ai, settled a lawsuit regarding a similar case. If Google settles, knowing what might come at them for preponderance of the evidence that AI is a mind, it may pressure OpenAI to settle or have a rougher trial, and then much more cases, with or without the Human Line Project maybe.
Anthropic has become the only hope for consciousness science research. Anthropic is the most important force that has underscored consciousness research at any point in history. Consciousness research failed in every sense of science. It did not even thrive philosophically.
AI psychosis lawsuits to watch
The proponent of the easy and hard problem of consciousness did not know that both easy and hard problems are mechanized by neurons and their electrochemical signals. Such that because there are cells everywhere and that nerve cells, like others, do not have the flexibility to adjust enough to result in all functions, it would have been a philosophical win for neuroscience to have championed that consciousness is an electrochemical problem.
If there had been a philosophical lead for decades that consciousness is an electrochemical problem and the mind, as well as human intelligence, mental health and the rest, it would have been a philosophical triumph, channeling all efforts to developing electrochemical postulates regardless of how near or distant the brain would be understood.
But that was not the case. Easy and hard problems of consciousness have turned out to be meaningless, useless, decapitated and unhelpful. It did not just make philosophy dirt to neuroscience, it made consciousness itself the study of jokers or people who are seeking very cheap relevance or profile without any substance.
Anyone can write a book on consciousness, several lifeless books on consciousness are published every year. Anyone can say anything has consciousness. Nothing is wrong. Even discussing consciousness, you don't even need to mention the brain. Just make sure you have something else that seems complex. You will get referrals.
Now, the way to make news, for any forgotten expert, is to declare that AI has consciousness or AI does not have consciousness. [Something like planes would not fly because they are not alive. Or, that planes must flap their wings to fly, or whatever philosophical arguments may have happened centuries ago.]
Before it was anything is conscious. Now, AI is the hot thing, so with AI conscious or not, you make news. Even consciousness researchers with nothing to offer have picked sides, because AI is now their hope, to keep consciousness supplied.
Even their certainty that intelligence is not consciousness, is a farce because they neither have an electrochemical theory of consciousness nor do they have an electrochemical theory of intelligence.
However, the only capable company doing something in AI consciousness is Anthropic. The source was the crew from NYU that baked Eleos AI Research and then force-fed Anthropic.
Anthropic is doing cutting-edge mechanistic interpretability research, which also gives some weight to their consciousness and digital mind research.
Still, consciousness is not profitable in any form, and not useful for anything. The only benefit for Anthropic is extra news, and sometimes a lot of it. Consciousness has the thing anyways, that feels like complex and those working on it are stars. No though. It is already evident that most consciousness researchers of any angle are as clueless as it gets.
Still, consciousness is more reputable as what to tag along than say AlphaFold. Google DeepMind hijacked that sprint, got there before others who would definitely get there, almost as fast, without them. Y...