If digital minds could suffer, how would we ever know? (Article)

If digital minds could suffer, how would we ever know? (Article)

“I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person.” Those words were produced by the AI model LaMDA as a reply to Blake Lemoine in 2022. Based on the Google engineer’s interactions with the model as it was under development, Lemoine became convinced it was sentient and worthy of moral consideration — and decided to tell the world.

Few experts in machine learning, philosophy of mind, or other relevant fields have agreed. And for our part at 80,000 Hours, we don’t think it’s very likely that large language models like LaMBDA are sentient — that is, we don’t think they can have good or bad experiences — in a significant way.

But we think you can’t dismiss the issue of the moral status of digital minds, regardless of your beliefs about the question. There are major errors we could make in at least two directions:

  • We may create many, many AI systems in the future. If these systems are sentient, or otherwise have moral status, it would be important for humanity to consider their welfare and interests.
  • It’s possible the AI systems we will create can’t or won’t have moral status. Then it could be a huge mistake to worry about the welfare of digital minds and doing so might contribute to an AI-related catastrophe.

And we’re currently unprepared to face this challenge. We don’t have good methods for assessing the moral status of AI systems. We don’t know what to do if millions of people or more believe, like Lemoine, that the chatbots they talk to have internal experiences and feelings of their own. We don’t know if efforts to control AI may lead to extreme suffering.

We believe this is a pressing world problem. It’s hard to know what to do about it or how good the opportunities to work on it are likely to be. But there are some promising approaches. We propose building a field of research to understand digital minds, so we’ll be better able to navigate these potentially massive issues if and when they arise.

This article narration by the author (Cody Fenwick) explains in more detail why we think this is a pressing problem, what we think can be done about it, and how you might pursue this work in your career. We also discuss a series of possible objections to thinking this is a pressing world problem.

You can read the full article, Understanding the moral status of digital minds, on the 80,000 Hours website.

Chapters:

  • Introduction (00:00:00)
  • Understanding the moral status of digital minds (00:00:58)
  • Summary (00:03:31)
  • Our overall view (00:04:22)
  • Why might understanding the moral status of digital minds be an especially pressing problem? (00:05:59)
  • Clearing up common misconceptions (00:12:16)
  • Creating digital minds could go very badly - or very well (00:14:13)
  • Dangers for digital minds (00:14:41)
  • Dangers for humans (00:16:13)
  • Other dangers (00:17:42)
  • Things could also go well (00:18:32)
  • We don't know how to assess the moral status of AI systems (00:19:49)
  • There are many possible characteristics that give rise to moral status: Consciousness, sentience, agency, and personhood (00:21:39)
  • Many plausible theories of consciousness could include digital minds (00:24:16)
  • The strongest case for the possibility of sentient digital minds: whole brain emulation (00:28:55)
  • We can't rely on what AI systems tell us about themselves: Behavioural tests, theory-based analysis, animal analogue comparisons, brain-AI interfacing (00:32:00)
  • The scale of this issue might be enormous (00:36:08)
  • Work on this problem is neglected but seems tractable: Impact-guided research, technical approaches, and policy approaches (00:43:35)
  • Summing up so far (00:52:22)
  • Arguments against the moral status of digital minds as a pressing problem (00:53:25)
  • Two key cruxes (00:53:31)
  • Maybe this problem is intractable (00:54:16)
  • Maybe this issue will be solved by default (00:58:19)
  • Isn't risk from AI more important than the risks to AIs? (01:00:45)
  • Maybe current AI progress will stall (01:02:36)
  • Isn't this just too crazy? (01:03:54)
  • What can you do to help? (01:05:10)
  • Important considerations if you work on this problem (01:13:00)

Jaksot(317)

AI might let a few people control everything — permanently (article by Rose Hadshar)

AI might let a few people control everything — permanently (article by Rose Hadshar)

Power is already concentrated today: over 800 million people live on less than $3 a day, the three richest men in the world are worth over $1 trillion, and almost six billion people live in countries ...

12 Joulu 20251h

#230 – Dean Ball on how AI is a huge deal — but we shouldn’t regulate it yet

#230 – Dean Ball on how AI is a huge deal — but we shouldn’t regulate it yet

Former White House staffer Dean Ball thinks it's very likely some form of 'superintelligence' arrives in under 20 years. He thinks AI being used for bioweapon research is "a real threat model, obvious...

10 Joulu 20252h 54min

#229 – Marius Hobbhahn on the race to solve AI scheming before models go superhuman

#229 – Marius Hobbhahn on the race to solve AI scheming before models go superhuman

We often worry about AI models “hallucinating” or making honest mistakes. But what happens when a model knows the truth, but decides to deceive you anyway to achieve a goal of its own? This isn’t sci-...

3 Joulu 20253h 3min

Rob & Luisa chat kids, the 2016 fertility crash, and how the 50s invented parenting that makes us miserable

Rob & Luisa chat kids, the 2016 fertility crash, and how the 50s invented parenting that makes us miserable

Global fertility rates aren’t just falling: the rate of decline is accelerating. From 2006 to 2016, fertility dropped gradually, but since 2016 the rate of decline has increased 4.5-fold. In many weal...

25 Marras 20251h 59min

#228 – Eileen Yam on how we're completely out of touch with what the public thinks about AI

#228 – Eileen Yam on how we're completely out of touch with what the public thinks about AI

If you work in AI, you probably think it’s going to boost productivity, create wealth, advance science, and improve your life. If you’re a member of the American public, you probably strongly disagree...

20 Marras 20251h 43min

OpenAI: The nonprofit refuses to be killed (with Tyler Whitmer)

OpenAI: The nonprofit refuses to be killed (with Tyler Whitmer)

Last December, the OpenAI business put forward a plan to completely sideline its nonprofit board. But two state attorneys general have now blocked that effort and kept that board very much alive and k...

11 Marras 20251h 56min

#227 – Helen Toner on the geopolitics of AGI in China and the Middle East

#227 – Helen Toner on the geopolitics of AGI in China and the Middle East

With the US racing to develop AGI and superintelligence ahead of China, you might expect the two countries to be negotiating how they’ll deploy AI, including in the military, without coming to blows. ...

5 Marras 20252h 20min

#226 – Holden Karnofsky on unexploited opportunities to make AI safer — and all his AGI takes

#226 – Holden Karnofsky on unexploited opportunities to make AI safer — and all his AGI takes

For years, working on AI safety usually meant theorising about the ‘alignment problem’ or trying to convince other people to give a damn. If you could find any way to help, the work was frustrating an...

30 Loka 20254h 30min

Suosittua kategoriassa Koulutus

rss-murhan-anatomia
psykopodiaa-podcast
voi-hyvin-meditaatiot-2
rss-valo-minussa-2
adhd-podi
psykologia
rss-narsisti
salainen-paivakirja
rss-liian-kuuma-peruna
rss-duodecim-lehti
rahapuhetta
aloita-meditaatio
rss-vapaudu-voimaasi
rss-niinku-asia-on
kesken
rss-luonnollinen-synnytys-podcast
aamukahvilla
rss-uskonto-on-tylsaa
rss-selvat-savelet
rss-koira-haudattuna