‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

A warning about 'model welfare'

242 points · 701 comments · andsoitis

  1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
    Birch, The Edge of Sentience (2024), ch. 16 - "simply no way to assess sentience in an LLM"

    Schwitzgebel, AI and Consciousness (2025) - "we won't know before we've already manufactured thousands or millions of disputably conscious AI".

    Butlin, Long et al., Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness (2023) - "no obvious technical barriers to building AI systems which satisfy these indicators".

    Chalmers, Could a Large Language Model Be Conscious? (2023) - "within the next decade, we may well have systems that are serious candidates for consciousness".

    Long, Sebo, Butlin, Birch et al., Taking AI Welfare Seriously (2024) - "there is a realistic possibility that some AI systems will be conscious and/or robustly agentic in the near future".

    Dreksler, Caviola, Chalmers, Sebo et al., Subjective Experience in AI Systems: What Do AI Researchers and the Public Believe? (2025) - survey of 582 AI researchers; median estimate of 25% by 2034, and only 10% that such systems will never exist.

    1. TacticalCoder · · focus · HN ↗
      Well there are, today, several models (either text or image or vid) that can be run in a fully deterministic way.

      A conscious machine that always answer the very exact same thing, formulated the exact same way, bit for bit, to a query is, well, quite a weird kind of "consciousness".

      Now, I know, I know: the counter-argument is going to be "but humans have no free-will and are 100% deterministic too".

      I haven't yet decided if humans saying there's no free-will and who consider themselves to be 100% deterministic machines are reasonable or not.

      Meanwhile: seed / temperature = 0 and I'll happily turn the power button off of any glorified abacus without feeling bad about it.

      1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
        > A conscious machine that always answer the very exact same thing, formulated the exact same way, bit for bit, to a query is, well, quite a weird kind of "consciousness".

        You'll need to explain why.

        1. 5eueuur · · focus · HN ↗
          it's self evident isn't it - such a consciousness has never existed, one existing would be by the fact of existing be weird
          1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            It doesn't seem self evident to me, no.

            I suspect the reasoning is connected to free will vs. determinism. But no, I see no inconsistency. You'll have to actually point it out.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.