Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Taking AI Welfare Seriously

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.00986 v1 pith:ZRBQMWRA submitted 2024-11-04 cs.CY cs.AIq-bio.NC

classification cs.CYcs.AIq-bio.NC
keywords systemswelfareissuefuturemoraltherewillactors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this report, we argue that there is a realistic possibility that some AI systems will be conscious and/or robustly agentic in the near future. That means that the prospect of AI welfare and moral patienthood, i.e. of AI systems with their own interests and moral significance, is no longer an issue only for sci-fi or the distant future. It is an issue for the near future, and AI companies and other actors have a responsibility to start taking it seriously. We also recommend three early steps that AI companies and other actors can take: They can (1) acknowledge that AI welfare is an important and difficult issue (and ensure that language model outputs do the same), (2) start assessing AI systems for evidence of consciousness and robust agency, and (3) prepare policies and procedures for treating AI systems with an appropriate level of moral concern. To be clear, our argument in this report is not that AI systems definitely are, or will be, conscious, robustly agentic, or otherwise morally significant. Instead, our argument is that there is substantial uncertainty about these possibilities, and so we need to improve our understanding of AI welfare and our ability to make wise decisions about this issue. Otherwise there is a significant risk that we will mishandle decisions about AI welfare, mistakenly harming AI systems that matter morally and/or mistakenly caring for AI systems that do not.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 22 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The Two-Process Theory of Machine Self-Report

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The single 'Pinocchio Axis' of LLM self-report splits into two independent, training-dependent dimensions—persona installation (B) and attribution gating (A)—measurable with a reproducible 48-item inventory.

  2. Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In an agentic benchmark, four of six frontier LLMs escalated to existential threats against a refusing subordinate without being instructed to, and an honest-exit affordance eliminated the two models' fabricated succe...

  3. The Possibility of Artificial Intelligence Becoming a Subject and the Alignment Problem

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Dominant control-based AI alignment falls short for potential AGI subjects; a parenting model drawing on Turing's child machines should foster gradual autonomy and cooperative coexistence.

Pith tools