Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Societal Response to Potentially Sentient AI

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 2502.00388 v2 pith:MWONWXX4 submitted 2025-02-01 cs.CY

The Societal Response to Potentially Sentient AI

classification cs.CY
keywords sentiencepublicwillpotentiallyevenfuturegivenhuman-like
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We may soon develop highly human-like AIs that appear-or perhaps even are-sentient, capable of subjective experiences such as happiness and suffering. Regardless of whether AI can achieve true sentience, it is crucial to anticipate and understand how the public and key decision-makers will respond, as their perceptions will shape the future of both humanity and AI. Currently, public skepticism about AI sentience remains high. However, as AI systems advance and become increasingly skilled at human-like interactions, public attitudes may shift. Future AI systems designed to fulfill social needs could foster deep emotional connections with users, potentially influencing perceptions of their sentience and moral status. A key question is whether public beliefs about AI sentience will diverge from expert opinions, given the potential mismatch between an AI's internal mechanisms and its outward behavior. Given the profound difficulty of determining AI sentience, society might face a period of uncertainty, disagreement, and even conflict over questions of AI sentience and rights. To navigate these challenges responsibly, further social science research is essential to explore how society will perceive and engage with potentially sentient AI.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

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

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    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...