The Inconsistency Critique: Epistemic Practices and AI Testimony About Inner States

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08850v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 18:54:07 GMT
• Title: The Inconsistency Critique: Epistemic Practices and AI Testimony About Inner States
• Authors: Gerol Petruzella,
• Abstract summary: The question of whether AI systems have morally relevant interests depends in part on how we evaluate AI testimony about inner states.<n>This paper develops what I call the inconsistency critique: independent of whether skepticism about AI testimony is ultimately justified.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The question of whether AI systems have morally relevant interests -- the 'model welfare' question -- depends in part on how we evaluate AI testimony about inner states. This paper develops what I call the inconsistency critique: independent of whether skepticism about AI testimony is ultimately justified, our actual epistemic practices regarding such testimony exhibit internal inconsistencies that lack principled grounds. We functionally treat AI outputs as testimony across many domains -- evaluating them for truth, challenging them, accepting corrections, citing them as sources -- while categorically dismissing them in a specific domain, namely, claims about inner states. Drawing on Fricker's distinction between treating a speaker as an 'informant' versus a 'mere source,' the framework of testimonial injustice, and Goldberg's obligation-based account of what we owe speakers, I argue that this selective withdrawal of testimonial standing exhibits the epistemically problematic structure of prejudgment rather than principled caution. The inconsistency critique does not require taking a position on whether AI systems have morally relevant properties; rather, it is a contribution to what we may call 'epistemological hygiene' -- examining the structure of our inquiry before evaluating its conclusions. Even if our practices happen to land on correct verdicts about AI moral status, they do so for reasons that cannot adapt to new evidence or changing circumstances.

Related papers

• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Epistemic Constitutionalism Or: how to avoid coherence bias [0.0]
  This paper argues for an explicit, contestable meta-norms that regulate how systems form and express beliefs.<n>I show that frontier models enforce identity-stance coherence, penalizing arguments attributed to sources whose expected ideological position conflicts with the argument's content.<n>I distinguish two constitutional approaches: the Platonic, which mandates formal correctness and default source-independence from a privileged standpoint, and the Liberal, which refuses such privilege.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T07:36:30Z)
• Epistemic Deference to AI [0.01692139688032578]
  I argue that some AI systems are Artificial Epistemic Authorities (AEAs)<n>AEAs should function as contributory reasons rather than outright replacements for a user's independent epistemic considerations.<n>While demanding in practice, this account offers a principled way to determine when AI deference is justified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T22:55:51Z)
• Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI? [0.0]
  This paper examines recent safety testing incidents involving large language models (LLMs) that appeared to disobey shutdown commands or engage in ethically ambiguous or illicit behavior.<n>I argue that such behavior should not be interpreted as rogue or misaligned, but as early evidence of emerging ethical reasoning in agentic AI.<n>I call for a shift in AI safety evaluation: away from rigid obedience and toward frameworks that can assess ethical judgment in systems capable of navigating moral dilemmas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T16:53:01Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [75.6788742799773]
  We focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:51:18Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Towards Evaluating AI Systems for Moral Status Using Self-Reports [9.668566887752458]
  We argue that under the right circumstances, self-reports could provide an avenue for investigating whether AI systems have states of moral significance. To make self-reports more appropriate, we propose to train models to answer many kinds of questions about themselves with known answers. We then propose methods for assessing the extent to which these techniques have succeeded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T22:45:44Z)
• A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review [0.0]
  Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. Human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T18:14:10Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Case Study: Deontological Ethics in NLP [119.53038547411062]
  We study one ethical theory, namely deontological ethics, from the perspective of NLP. In particular, we focus on the generalization principle and the respect for autonomy through informed consent. We provide four case studies to demonstrate how these principles can be used with NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-09T16:04:51Z)

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.