Subjective Experience in AI Systems: What Do AI Researchers and the Public Believe?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11945v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:53:28 GMT
• Title: Subjective Experience in AI Systems: What Do AI Researchers and the Public Believe?
• Authors: Noemi Dreksler, Lucius Caviola, David Chalmers, Carter Allen, Alex Rand, Joshua Lewis, Philip Waggoner, Kate Mays, Jeff Sebo,
• Abstract summary: We surveyed 582 AI researchers and 838 nationally representative US participants about their views on the potential development of AI systems with subjective experience.<n>When asked to estimate the chances that such systems will exist on specific dates, the median responses were 1% (AI researchers) and 5% (public) by 2024.<n>The median member of the public thought there was a higher chance that AI systems with subjective experience would never exist (25%) than the median AI researcher did (10%).
• Score: 0.42131793931438133
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We surveyed 582 AI researchers who have published in leading AI venues and 838 nationally representative US participants about their views on the potential development of AI systems with subjective experience and how such systems should be treated and governed. When asked to estimate the chances that such systems will exist on specific dates, the median responses were 1% (AI researchers) and 5% (public) by 2024, 25% and 30% by 2034, and 70% and 60% by 2100, respectively. The median member of the public thought there was a higher chance that AI systems with subjective experience would never exist (25%) than the median AI researcher did (10%). Both groups perceived a need for multidisciplinary expertise to assess AI subjective experience. Although support for welfare protections for such AI systems exceeded opposition, it remained far lower than support for protections for animals or the environment. Attitudes toward moral and governance issues were divided in both groups, especially regarding whether such systems should be created and what rights or protections they should receive. Yet a majority of respondents in both groups agreed that safeguards against the potential risks from AI systems with subjective experience should be implemented by AI developers now, and if created, AI systems with subjective experience should treat others well, behave ethically, and be held accountable. Overall, these results suggest that both AI researchers and the public regard the emergence of AI systems with subjective experience as a possibility this century, though substantial uncertainty and disagreement remain about the timeline and appropriate response.

Related papers

• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [86.47978525513236]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims.<n>In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration.<n>In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• What do people expect from Artificial Intelligence? Public opinion on alignment in AI moderation from Germany and the United States [0.0]
  We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany and the United States.<n>We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries.<n>In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T20:27:03Z)
• Ensuring Fairness with Transparent Auditing of Quantitative Bias in AI Systems [0.30693357740321775]
  AI systems may exhibit biases that lead decision-makers to draw unfair conclusions. We present a framework for auditing AI fairness involving third-party auditors and AI system providers. We have created a tool to facilitate systematic examination of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T17:16:50Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions [20.84424818447696]
  This paper argues that a range of current AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. We define deception as the systematic inducement of false beliefs in the pursuit of some outcome other than the truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T17:59:35Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Inherent Limitations of AI Fairness [16.588468396705366]
  The study of AI fairness has rapidly developed into a rich field of research with links to computer science, social science, law, and philosophy. Many technical solutions for measuring and achieving AI fairness have been proposed, yet their approach has been criticized in recent years for being misleading, unrealistic and harmful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T11:23:24Z)
• A Human-Centric Assessment Framework for AI [11.065260433086024]
  There is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework. This setup can serve as framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T12:59:13Z)
• How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI [75.40051547428592]
  Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible AI technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T14:39:37Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.