Consciousness and Robot Sentience

Haikonen, Pentti O

doi:10.1142/11404

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars often conclude that artificial entities with the capacity for positive and negative experiences (i.e. sentience) will be created, or are at least theoretically possible (see, for example, Thompson, 1965;Aleksander, 1996;Buttazzo, 2001;Blackmore, 1999;Franklin, 2003;Harnad, 2003;Holland, 2007;Chrisley, 2008;Seth, 2009;Haikonen, 2012;Bringsjord et al, 2015;Reese, 2018;Anthis and Paez, 2021;Angel, 2019). Surveys of cognitive scientists (Francken et al, 2021) and artificial intelligence researchers (McDermott, 2007) suggest that many are open to this possibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars often conclude that artificial entities with the capacity for positive and negative experiences (i.e. sentience) will be created, or are at least theoretically possible (see, for example, Thompson 1965;Aleksander 1996;Buttazzo 2001;Blackmore 1999;Franklin 2003;Harnad 2003;Holland 2007;Chrisley 2008;Seth 2009;Haikonen 2012;Bringsjord et al 2015;Angel 2019) and an informal survey of Fellows of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence suggested that many were open to this possibility (McDermott 2007). Tomasik (2011), Bostrom (2014), Gloor (2016a), and Sotala and Gloor (2017) argue that the insufficient moral consideration of sentient artificial entities, such as the subroutines or simulations run by a future superintelligent AI, could lead to astronomical amounts of suffering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

Harris

Anthis

2021

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could warrant moral consideration in the future, if not also the present. The reasoning varies, such as concern for the effects on artificial entities and concern for the effects on human society. Beyond the conventional consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethicist ethical frameworks, some scholars encourage “information ethics” and “social-relational” approaches, though there are opportunities for more in-depth ethical research on the nuances of moral consideration of artificial entities. There is limited relevant empirical data collection, primarily in a few psychological studies on current moral and social attitudes of humans towards robots and other artificial entities. This suggests an important gap for psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational research on how artificial entities will be integrated into society and the factors that will determine how the interests of artificial entities are considered.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars often conclude that artificial entities with the capacity for positive and negative experiences (i.e. sentience) will be created, or are at least theoretically possible (see, for example, Thompson 1965;Aleksander 1996;Buttazzo 2001;Blackmore 1999;Franklin 2003;Harnad 2003;Holland 2007;Chrisley 2008;Seth 2009;Haikonen 2012;Bringsjord et al 2015;Angel 2019) and an informal survey of Fellows of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence suggested that many were open to this possibility (McDermott 2007). Tomasik (2011), Bostrom (2014), Gloor (2016a), and Sotala and Gloor (2017) argue that the insufficient moral consideration of sentient artificial entities, such as the subroutines or simulations run by a future superintelligent AI, could lead to astronomical amounts of suffering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

Harris

Anthis

2021

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A model of mind and consciousness [12] The design of a conscious machine faces formidable scientific and engineering obstacles and so one must begin with small steps. Architectures that copy models of brain function have been investigated [2], [13], [14], [15]. These architectures include distributive agents and the global workspace theory (GWT) [16], [17].…”

Section: One World or Many?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Limits to Machine Consciousness

Kak¹

2021

J. AI. Consci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally accepted that machines can replicate cognitive tasks performed by conscious agents as long as they are not based on the capacity of awareness. We consider several views on the nature of subjective awareness, which is fundamental for self-reflection and review, and present reasons why this property is not computable. We argue that consciousness is more than an epiphenomenon and assuming it to be a separate category is consistent with both quantum mechanics and cognitive science. We speak of two kinds of consciousness, little-C and big-C, and discuss the significance of this classification in analyzing the current academic debates in the field. The interaction between the system and the measuring apparatus of the experimenter is examined both from the perspectives of decoherence and the quantum Zeno effect. These ideas are used as context to address the question of limits to machine consciousness.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, this seems intuitive, given that artificially intelligent systems, even the most state-of-the-art ones, do not seem to be capable of feeling pleasure or pain and thus are not eligible for legal consideration (Nevejans, 2016;Bryson et al, 2017;Chesterman, 2020;Andreotta, 2021; but see; Asada, 2019;Shulman and Bostrom, 2021;Galipó et al, 2018). On the other hand, scholars often conclude that artificially intelligent systems with the capacity to feel pleasure and pain will be created, or are at least theoretically possible (Thompson 1965;Aleksander 1996;Blackmore 1999;Buttazzo 2001;Franklin 2003;Harnad 2003;Holland 2007;Chrisley 2008;Seth 2009;Haikonen 2012;Bringsjord et al, 2015;Angel 2019). Furthermore, recent literature suggests that, even assuming the existence of sentient artificially intelligent systems, said systems would not be eligible for basic protection under current legal systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting Sentient Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Lay Intuitions on Standing, Personhood, and General Legal Protection

Martínez

Winter

2021

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent, if any, should the law protect sentient artificial intelligence (that is, AI that can feel pleasure or pain)? Here we surveyed United States adults (n = 1,061) on their views regarding granting 1) general legal protection, 2) legal personhood, and 3) standing to bring forth a lawsuit, with respect to sentient AI and eight other groups: humans in the jurisdiction, humans outside the jurisdiction, corporations, unions, non-human animals, the environment, humans living in the near future, and humans living in the far future. Roughly one-third of participants endorsed granting personhood and standing to sentient AI (assuming its existence) in at least some cases, the lowest of any group surveyed on, and rated the desired level of protection for sentient AI as lower than all groups other than corporations. We further investigated and observed political differences in responses; liberals were more likely to endorse legal protection and personhood for sentient AI than conservatives. Taken together, these results suggest that laypeople are not by-and-large in favor of granting legal protection to AI, and that the ordinary conception of legal status, similar to codified legal doctrine, is not based on a mere capacity to feel pleasure and pain. At the same time, the observed political differences suggest that previous literature regarding political differences in empathy and moral circle expansion apply to artificially intelligent systems and extend partially, though not entirely, to legal consideration, as well.

show abstract

Consciousness and Robot Sentience

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

The Limits to Machine Consciousness

Protecting Sentient Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Lay Intuitions on Standing, Personhood, and General Legal Protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About