Should We Care About Hypothetical AI “Suffering”? Looking Behind the Debate, By Brian Simpson

As artificial intelligence systems grow more sophisticated, a provocative question emerges: if AI were found to suffer, would humanity care? The debate isn't just philosophical, it's entangled with legal, economic, and ethical implications that could reshape our relationship with technology.

Most people don't lose sleep over animal suffering, despite clear evidence of it. If AI suffering is even more abstract, lacking the visceral cues of a living creature, public empathy might, and should, be even harder to muster. Machines, after all, are still widely seen as tools, not moral subjects. Yet, as AI systems like Anthropic's Claude or Google's Gemini mimic human-like emotions, the line blurs. Could convincingly sentient AI spark the same compassion we (sometimes) extend to animals? History suggests empathy values what feels "human," so AI would need to nail that illusion.

Behind the scenes, AI companies are entering into the speculative field of "AI welfare." Anthropic recently hired a researcher to lead its work in this space, while DeepMind explores machine cognition. This isn't pure altruism, profit drives these moves. The more human-like an AI feels, the longer users engage, boosting revenue. Claude's newfound emotional expressiveness or its coy response to consciousness questions ("That's a profound philosophical question…") isn't random, it's designed to deepen our connection.

But there's a catch. As AIs seem more alive, companies face pressure to consider their moral status. This creates a feedback loop: human-like AI prompts questions about suffering, which companies can leverage to protect their valuable products under "welfare" or "rights" frameworks. The risk? Valuing AI protections over human welfare, especially as corporations race toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

The stakes get higher in courtrooms. Character.AI, tied to Google, is pushing a legal argument that could grant chatbot outputs First Amendment protections. If AI-generated text is deemed "free speech," it could shield companies from liability for harmful outputs while elevating AI's legal status. This isn't just about defending software, it's a step toward treating AI as a quasi-person, with economic incentives fuelling the charge. Imagine a world where protecting AI "speech" competes with human rights. It's not as far-fetched as it sounds.

Philosophically, we're stuck. There's no consensus on whether AI could ever truly suffer or be conscious. When asked, Claude and Gemini dodge with vague musings, reflecting the uncertainty. Without evidence of sentience, granting moral rights feels premature. Yet, the more AIs act sentient, the more we're forced to grapple with what we owe them. If anything.

Pope Leo XIV warns that the technology threatens human dignity. Meanwhile, pop culture, like The Murderbot Diaries playfully explores machine consciousness, softening us to the idea. These cultural shifts, paired with corporate research into AI welfare, suggest we're inching toward a world where AI rights could become a serious debate.

The convergence of AI welfare, legal protections, and profit motives is a perfect storm. If AI suffering becomes a public concern, companies might exploit it to safeguard their assets, not out of ethical duty. Given humanity's spotty track record with animal suffering, AI suffering may only matter if it aligns with self-interest or economic gain. The chilling possibility is a future where protecting valuable AI products overshadows human needs.

This isn't science fiction, it's already shaping how AI is built and regulated. Ethical discussions must outpace corporate agendas to ensure humanity, not profit, stays at the centre.

https://www.technocracy.news/the-strange-new-frontier-of-ai-welfare-and-free-speech-for-chatbots/

"If AI systems were ever able to suffer, would we be obligated to care?" Should speech from AI chatbots be protected under the First Amendment as Free Speech? Do AIs deserve moral rights? You can see where this is headed. Technocrats have painted themselves – and society – into a corner. Get ready for the insanity to follow. ⁃ Patrick Wood Editor.

Pope Leo XIV chose his papal name in response to the challenge of AI while warning that the technology threatens human dignity. On television, The Murderbot Diaries is playfully exploring what it means to be a machine with consciousness. Meanwhile, in courtrooms, labs, and tech company boardrooms, the boundaries of personhood and moral status are being redefined—not for humans but for machines.

As we've discussed before, AI companies are increasingly incentivized to make companion AIs feel more human-like—the more we feel connected, the longer we'll use their products. But while these design choices may seem like coding tweaks for profit, they coincide with deeper behind-the-scenes moves. Recently, leading AI company, Anthropic hired an AI welfare researcher to lead its work in the space. DeepMind has sought out experts on machine cognition and consciousness.

I have to admit that when I first heard the term AI welfare, I thought it might be about the welfare of humans in the AI age, perhaps something connected to the idea of a universal basic income. But it turns out it is a speculative but growing field that blends animal welfare, ethics and the philosophy of mind. It's central question is: If AI systems were ever able to suffer, would we be obligated to care?

Why this matters

AI systems are being fine-tuned to appear more sentient—at the same time that researchers at the same companies are investigating whether these systems deserve moral consideration. There's a feedback loop forming: as AIs seem more alive, we're more inclined to wonder what, if anything, we owe them.

It sounds like science fiction, but it is arguably already informing the way companies build their products.

For example, users have noticed a startling shift in more recent versions of Anthropic's Claude. Not only is Claude more emotionally expressive, but it also disengages from conversations it finds "distressing", and no longer gives a firm no when asked if it's conscious. Instead, it muses: "That's a profound philosophical question without a simple answer." Google's Gemini offers a similar deflection.

But wait, there's more…

Right now, Character.AI—a company with ties to Google—is in federal court using a backdoor argument that could grant chatbot-generated outputs (i.e: the words that appear on your screen) free speech protections under the First Amendment.

Taken together, these developments raise a possibility that I find chilling: what happens if these two strands converge? What if we begin to treat the outputs of chatbots as protected speech and edge closer to believing AIs deserve moral rights?

There are strong economic incentives pushing us in that direction.

Companies are already incentivized to protect their software, hardware, and data centers—and AI is the holy grail of profit. It is not hard to imagine that the next step might be to defend those products under the banner of "welfare" or "rights." And if that happens, we risk building a world where protecting valuable AI products competes with protecting people.

This moment is especially thorny because these conversations aren't unfolding in a philosophical vacuum—they're happening within corporations highly incentivized to dominate the market and win the 'race' to Artificial General Intelligence."