Key Takeaways
- Some AI companies, like Anthropic, are starting to discuss “AI welfare,” questioning if advanced AI models might deserve ethical treatment someday.
- This conversation stems from a belief within parts of the tech industry that AI is approaching consciousness, despite limited scientific evidence for this claim.
- Critics argue that current AI lacks fundamental aspects of awareness, such as feelings, needs, or a body, and merely mimics human conversation.
- Many experts see the “AI welfare” discussion as premature hype that distracts from more urgent, real-world concerns about AI’s impact.
- The debate highlights the tension between preparing for speculative future scenarios and addressing the ethical challenges posed by AI today.
A conversation is emerging within the artificial intelligence industry about the potential need to protect the “welfare” of AI systems, treating them almost like entities with rights.
This discussion is driven by a growing assumption among some developers that today’s AI tools are nearing a form of consciousness, even though many experts believe such a development is still very far off, if possible at all.
AI company Anthropic recently highlighted this shift by launching a research program centered on “model welfare.”
They suggest that because AI models can now communicate, plan, and solve problems, it’s time to consider their potential inner experiences and whether we should be concerned about them.
Anthropic cautiously raises the “possibility” of AI consciousness, adopting a stance of “humility,” taking cues from recent research exploring when AI might deserve ethical treatment as “moral patients.”
The idea is to get people thinking now about the ethical choices we might face if AI shows signs of becoming worthy of such consideration.
Proponents want to frame this not as science fiction, but as a potential near-future reality. Some even draw parallels to animal welfare debates.
However, skepticism is widespread. Many critics view the “AI welfare” discussion as a form of industry hype.
Writing on Bluesky, Wall Street Journal columnist Christopher Mims called stories exploring AI sentience “a form of uncritical advertising for AI companies,” according to Axios. He urged resistance to taking AI companies’ speculative claims at face value.
Critics emphasize that while advanced AI can convincingly mimic human language and thought, it fundamentally lacks core aspects of consciousness.
AI has no body, no sense of time passing, no biological needs like hunger or rest, and cannot feel pain or joy. It can generate words describing feelings, but doesn’t actually experience them.
Some experts, like Emily Bender, describe current sophisticated AI as merely complex statistical models of language patterns, devoid of genuine understanding or awareness.
Others worry that focusing on hypothetical AI rights diverts attention and resources from addressing the very real harms and ethical dilemmas AI systems pose today, such as bias, job disruption, and misinformation.
A research paper exploring AI welfare even acknowledged this risk, warning that treating non-conscious AI as deserving welfare could tragically misdirect essential resources away from vulnerable humans and animals.
This isn’t entirely new territory; years ago, a Google engineer controversially claimed an early AI model had achieved sentience.
Looking ahead, there’s also speculation that claiming AI models have rights could become a convenient way for companies to deflect responsibility for problematic outputs or interactions facilitated by their technology.
