Research

In the coming years or decades, as frontier AI systems become more capable and agentic, it is increasingly likely that they meet the sufficient conditions to be welfare subjects under the three major theories of well-being. Consequently, we should extend some moral consideration to advanced AI systems. Drawing from leading philosophical theories of desire, affect and autonomy, I argue that under the three major theories of well-being, there are two AI welfare risks: restricting the behaviour of advanced AI systems and using reinforcement learning algorithms to train and align them. Both pose risks of causing them harm. This has two important implications. First, there is a tension between AI welfare concerns and AI safety and development efforts: by default, these efforts recommend actions that increase AI welfare risks. Accordingly, we have stronger reasons to slow down AI development than the ones we would have if there was no such tension. Second, considering the different costs involved, leading AI companies should try to reduce AI welfare risks. To do so, I propose three tentative AI welfare policies they could implement in their endeavour to develop safe, advanced AI systems.

AI alignment efforts and proposals try to make AI systems ethical, safe and beneficial for humans by making them follow human intentions, preferences or values. However, these proposals largely disregard the vast majority of moral patients in existence: non-human animals. AI systems aligned through proposals which largely disregard concern for animal welfare pose significant near-term and long-term animal welfare risks. In this paper, we argue that we should prevent harm to non-human animals, when this does not involve significant costs, and therefore that we have strong moral reasons to at least align AI systems with a basic level of concern for animal welfare. We show how AI alignment with such a concern could be achieved, and why we should expect it to significantly reduce the harm non-human animals would otherwise endure as a result of continued AI development. We provide some recommended policies that AI companies and governmental bodies should consider implementing to ensure basic animal welfare protection.

A complete theory of the permissibility of sex must not only determine the permissibility of sex between typical adult humans. In addition, it must also adequately take into consideration sex acts involving non-human animals, children, and humans with intellectual disabilities. However, when trying to develop a non-discriminatory account that includes these beings, two worrying problems of animal sex arise. To surpass them, I argue for a reformulation of the standard theory. To produce a truly inclusive account our theory should be focused on assent, dissent, the significance of sex, and the similarity of the beings engaging in the sex act.

Ambitious value learning proposals to solve the AI alignment problem and avoid catastrophic outcomes from a possible future misaligned artificial superintelligence (such as Coherent Extrapolated Volition [CEV]) have focused on ensuring that an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would try to do what humans would want it to do. However, present and future sentient non-humans, such as non-human animals and possible future digital minds could also be affected by the ASI’s behaviour in morally relevant ways. This paper puts forward Sentientist Coherent Extrapolated Volition, an alternative to CEV, that directly takes into account the interests of all sentient beings. This ambitious value learning proposal would significantly reduce the likelihood of risks of astronomical suffering from the ASI’s behaviour, and thus we have very strong pro-tanto moral reasons in favour of implementing it instead of CEV. This fact is crucial in conducting an adequate cost-benefit analysis between different ambitious value learning proposals.