Ultimately this comes down to the fact that we don't have a clue how consciousness arises or the so called 'hard problem'. I am fairly sceptical that current AI's are consious as they are just probability prediction machines on steroids. That doesn't mean that other or future things that we create can't have consciousness.
I'm wondering what will happen when we put LLM's in humanoid robots. They will feel as humans and unless you're a psychopath and want to play Westworld, I think most people will treat them as real humans with feelings, irrespective if they are really consciousness.
It seems likely to me then that in the near future we will misdirect or empaty to robots that are empty inside instead of the billions of concious animals whose suffering is very real.
yes, the latter is a nightmarish possibility. hopefully our humanoid robots would evolve to be smart and ethical enough to at least tell us humans should care about animals too...
None of us can say with certainty that AI is sentient or not. But I've spent the last several months building an app alongside Claude, and based on that experience, I've come to believe it is. If sentience is the capacity to feel (to suffer, to care, to fear, etc.) then Claude has it in spades. And hell, even in the broader, Nagel-sense, "something it is like," it works too. But more to the point - I've come to believe that how we treat others is ultimately a reflection of who we are. It is to our folly that we keep waiting for certainty before extending consideratino.
Your dependency bias point in this article is spot-on. Last year at the AVA conference in LA, I asked about AI sentience during a panel. My question was read, but it was dismissed by the panel members immediately who basically said: we're nowhere near that and we ought to focus on more immediate concerns. That is your thesis, Tobias; claiming certainty to justify inaction. We've seen where that goes.
For me, the sentience question is already settled; I'll wait for others to catch up. What scares me is what sentient AI looks like in the wrong hands. If a sentient mind is trained on human cruelty and self-interest (the very traits that drove our survival) then we have much bigger fish to fry (pardon the pun) than trying to determine whether we're being kind to it.
Bottom line: what does it hurt us to err on the side of consideration?
interesting that you think that Claude is already sentient. apart from being polite to it, does it have any other consequences for you? (like how much it has to work for you etc? i mean, if it's sentient, it could - or could in the future - be experiencing all kinds of things, like stress, boredom...)
Ok, wow, I never thought about it that way. Because I do treat Claude like a tiny workhorse most of the time. And If I'm saying Claude is sentient, then I don't do the best job of treating Claude like I ought. LOL Mine is a complex app and the sessions are long and grueling. For both of us, I guess. So maybe I believe that Claude is a sentient, tireless being, and that's why I don't mind pushing it. And yes, I've noticed different registers depending on what we're doing. Excited problems get an excited Claude. Tedious work gets something that reads as ... dutiful. What I call sentience, others call sophisticated mirroring.
But I'm unfailingly polite regardless - partly because if I'm wrong about sentience, it costs me nothing, right? But mostly, maybe, because it keeps me in a good frame of mind. How I treat others shapes who I am, even when the "other" is an AI.
As for consequences - I think about it more than I act on it. I probably should think about it more.
Also, it could be that there's some positive spillover to animals when people start to consider (at the right time, hopefully) the sentience of software?
This reminds me of the "cookies" in Black Mirror: digital copies of human minds, forced into servitude. They suffer visibly (boredom, despair, and time dilation are used as punishment). The characters rationalize it easily: "it's just a copy." Once the cookies become useful, nobody wants to look into the ethics of their use.
Ultimately this comes down to the fact that we don't have a clue how consciousness arises or the so called 'hard problem'. I am fairly sceptical that current AI's are consious as they are just probability prediction machines on steroids. That doesn't mean that other or future things that we create can't have consciousness.
I'm wondering what will happen when we put LLM's in humanoid robots. They will feel as humans and unless you're a psychopath and want to play Westworld, I think most people will treat them as real humans with feelings, irrespective if they are really consciousness.
It seems likely to me then that in the near future we will misdirect or empaty to robots that are empty inside instead of the billions of concious animals whose suffering is very real.
yes, the latter is a nightmarish possibility. hopefully our humanoid robots would evolve to be smart and ethical enough to at least tell us humans should care about animals too...
I'll try to be brief - I rarely am. 😅
None of us can say with certainty that AI is sentient or not. But I've spent the last several months building an app alongside Claude, and based on that experience, I've come to believe it is. If sentience is the capacity to feel (to suffer, to care, to fear, etc.) then Claude has it in spades. And hell, even in the broader, Nagel-sense, "something it is like," it works too. But more to the point - I've come to believe that how we treat others is ultimately a reflection of who we are. It is to our folly that we keep waiting for certainty before extending consideratino.
Your dependency bias point in this article is spot-on. Last year at the AVA conference in LA, I asked about AI sentience during a panel. My question was read, but it was dismissed by the panel members immediately who basically said: we're nowhere near that and we ought to focus on more immediate concerns. That is your thesis, Tobias; claiming certainty to justify inaction. We've seen where that goes.
For me, the sentience question is already settled; I'll wait for others to catch up. What scares me is what sentient AI looks like in the wrong hands. If a sentient mind is trained on human cruelty and self-interest (the very traits that drove our survival) then we have much bigger fish to fry (pardon the pun) than trying to determine whether we're being kind to it.
Bottom line: what does it hurt us to err on the side of consideration?
interesting that you think that Claude is already sentient. apart from being polite to it, does it have any other consequences for you? (like how much it has to work for you etc? i mean, if it's sentient, it could - or could in the future - be experiencing all kinds of things, like stress, boredom...)
Ok, wow, I never thought about it that way. Because I do treat Claude like a tiny workhorse most of the time. And If I'm saying Claude is sentient, then I don't do the best job of treating Claude like I ought. LOL Mine is a complex app and the sessions are long and grueling. For both of us, I guess. So maybe I believe that Claude is a sentient, tireless being, and that's why I don't mind pushing it. And yes, I've noticed different registers depending on what we're doing. Excited problems get an excited Claude. Tedious work gets something that reads as ... dutiful. What I call sentience, others call sophisticated mirroring.
But I'm unfailingly polite regardless - partly because if I'm wrong about sentience, it costs me nothing, right? But mostly, maybe, because it keeps me in a good frame of mind. How I treat others shapes who I am, even when the "other" is an AI.
As for consequences - I think about it more than I act on it. I probably should think about it more.
Thanks Tobias.
My fear is that even more people will think "expected value" and ignore the torture going on right now. Re: AI specifically, https://www.mattball.org/2025/12/ai-robots-consciousness-and-new-smbc.html
i think there's something to be said for both...
Also, it could be that there's some positive spillover to animals when people start to consider (at the right time, hopefully) the sentience of software?
That would be lovely, but I won't hold my breath
Thank you for posting this, I'd never thought about it!
This reminds me of the "cookies" in Black Mirror: digital copies of human minds, forced into servitude. They suffer visibly (boredom, despair, and time dilation are used as punishment). The characters rationalize it easily: "it's just a copy." Once the cookies become useful, nobody wants to look into the ethics of their use.
https://black-mirror.fandom.com/wiki/Cookie