The Sentience Readiness Index: A Preliminary Framework for Measuring National Preparedness for the Possibility of Artificial Sentience

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01508v2
• Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 06:27:17 GMT
• Title: The Sentience Readiness Index: A Preliminary Framework for Measuring National Preparedness for the Possibility of Artificial Sentience
• Authors: Tony Rost,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the Sentience Readiness Index (SRI), a preliminary composite index measuring national-level preparedness across six weighted categories for 31 jurisdictions.<n>No jurisdiction exceeds Partially Prepared'' (the United Kingdom leads at 49/100)<n>These exploratory findings suggest that if AI sentience becomes scientifically plausible, no society currently possesses adequate institutional, professional, or cultural infrastructure to respond.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The scientific study of consciousness has begun to generate testable predictions about artificial systems. A landmark collaborative assessment evaluated current AI architectures against six leading theories of consciousness and found that none currently qualifies as a strong candidate, but that future systems might. A precautionary approach to AI sentience, which holds that credible possibility of sentience warrants governance action even without proof, has gained philosophical and institutional traction. Yet existing AI readiness indices, including the Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index, the IMF AI Preparedness Index, and the Stanford AI Index, measure economic, technological, and governance preparedness without assessing whether societies are prepared for the possibility that AI systems might warrant moral consideration. This paper introduces the Sentience Readiness Index (SRI), a preliminary composite index measuring national-level preparedness across six weighted categories for 31 jurisdictions. The SRI was constructed following the OECD/JRC framework for composite indicators and employs LLM-assisted expert scoring with iterative expert review to generate an initial dataset. No jurisdiction exceeds ``Partially Prepared'' (the United Kingdom leads at 49/100). Research Environment scores are universally the strongest category; Professional Readiness is universally the weakest. These exploratory findings suggest that if AI sentience becomes scientifically plausible, no society currently possesses adequate institutional, professional, or cultural infrastructure to respond. As a preliminary framework, the SRI provides an initial diagnostic baseline and highlights areas for future methodological refinement, including expanded expert validation, improved measurement instruments, and longitudinal data collection.

Related papers

• From Vision to Validation: A Theory- and Data-Driven Construction of a GCC-Specific AI Adoption Index [0.21485350418225244]
  This study employs a theory-driven foundation derived from an in-depth analysis of literature review and six National AI Strategies (NASs)<n>The research develops and validates a novel AI Adoption Index specifically tailored to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) public sector.<n>Findings indicate that robust technical infrastructure and clear policy mandates exert the strongest influence on successful AI implementations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T20:06:57Z)
• A Study on the Framework for Evaluating the Ethics and Trustworthiness of Generative AI [6.664765506069473]
  generative AI, such as ChatGPT, demonstrates remarkable innovative potential.<n>It simultaneously raises ethical and social concerns, including bias, harmfulness, copyright infringement, privacy violations, and hallucination.<n>This study emphasizes the need for new human_centered criteria that also reflect social impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-30T07:38:07Z)
• The next question after Turing's question: Introducing the Grow-AI test [51.56484100374058]
  This study aims to extend the framework for assessing artificial intelligence, called GROW-AI.<n>GROW-AI is designed to answer the question "Can machines grow up?" -- a natural successor to the Turing Test.<n>The originality of the work lies in the conceptual transposition of the process of "growing" from the human world to that of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T10:19:42Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Trust, Accountability, and Autonomy in Knowledge Graph-based AI for Self-determination [1.4305544869388402]
  Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have emerged as fundamental platforms for powering intelligent decision-making. The integration of KGs with neuronal learning is currently a topic of active research. This paper conceptualises the foundational topics and research pillars to support KG-based AI for self-determination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T12:51:52Z)
• Counter Turing Test CT^2: AI-Generated Text Detection is Not as Easy as You May Think -- Introducing AI Detectability Index [9.348082057533325]
  AI-generated text detection (AGTD) has emerged as a topic that has already received immediate attention in research. This paper introduces the Counter Turing Test (CT2), a benchmark consisting of techniques aiming to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the fragility of existing AGTD techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T06:20:36Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.