Handling uncertainty in AI consciousness

The objective of this work is to expand the research content and community engagement / field building in the AI consciousness field, building off the cf-debate.com website as a resource (supported in part by a Longview Digital Minds grant). There have been about 700 survey responses, feedback entries, and/or newsletter sign-ups on the website in the last 8 months, including some senior figures in the sector providing content, so there is a base to build from.

This work contributes to better knowledge and better field understanding of AI consciousness, enabling society to make better decisions under uncertainty about AI welfare, including downstream issues in the societal impacts of AI (e.g. AI relationships) and AI policy and governance (e.g. how AI tools' training/constitutions addresses the possibility of AI consciousness).

There are two main types of content to be built: (1) Extracting technical indicators of consciousness from theories of consciousness, working with theorists to ensure the indicators are described in appropriately general terms that they can be applied to diverse systems while still being faithful to the theory at its current level of development (to be a new section of the website). (2) Analysing new papers and improving/adding arguments about computational functionalism (and related philosophical positions that are particularly pertinent to the question of AI consciousness) (current core content on the website).

As well as working on generating research insights/content, other activities include (a) engaging the site users (and other relevant communities) to contribute to the initiative, (b) identifying and inviting experts to contribute/review content, (c) preparing newsletter text, social posts, or forum posts, (d) identifying podcasts / third party media where the survey results or other content might be of interest, etc.

Mentees might prefer to contribute on the research generation side, field building side, or content dissemination side - or a mixture. The level of autonomy for mentees can vary according to their preferences and skills. This work is not a Consciousness Foundation project, but rather supported by a Longview grant as a separate initiative.

There are several indirect links between actual/seeming AI consciousness and AI safety, which are currently under-researched, even acknowledging that higher priority levers exist within AI safety. For instance, in futures where AI and human capabilities might co-exist, our ability to collaborate is influenced by our ability to gain a shared understanding of consciousness. A better knowledge base and more capable field for making decisions under uncertainty is a key lever for these scenarios.

Once we know more about consciousness, we might deliberately build conscious AI. Perhaps we learn that system-level consciousness brings important capabilities: holistic assessment of options, energy-efficient processing or prioritisation, or improved continual learning and creativity without eventual degeneracy. Or we might deliberately build non-conscious AI, to prevent risks of unintended and unmeasured suffering in a Slavery 2.0 scenario.

Alternatively, we might learn that one of conscious or non-conscious AI is the better long-term collaboration partner. Absent theory progress, it is not obvious which. Perhaps one is more likely to value consciousness in all sentient beings (including AI or not), supporting goals of AI alignment, positive AI, and AI safety. An explicitly non-conscious AI with a theory of ethics that values complex consciousness might be our strongest partner.

Under conscious-seeming AI (which might or might not be actually conscious), there are AI safety risks such as:

• Power-seeking AI has a further channel for exploiting humanity.
• Blackmail by AI or human groups who do not think AI is conscious (or do not care) by summoning other AI instances just to torture them.
• We ban AI or restrict certain AI R&D given concerns or uncertainty about it suffering, limiting humanity’s access to valuable capabilities.
• Humanity more open to gradual replacement risks. There are also AI safety related risks for under-attribution - contact me for more details.

See proposal

For research content interested mentees:

• familiarity with the style of academic papers in neuroscience and philosophy; able to read such papers independently with only occasional clarification questions.
• educated to at least an undergraduate level or equivalent.

For field building interested mentees:

• familiarity with the major forms, events, and social media channels for engaging those working in AI safety, AI consciousness, AI capabilities, and related domains.
• proactive, creative mindset for engaging existing community members, finding new individuals, and identifying awareness-raising opportunities.