If you happened to hop on AI Twitter in the last couple of weeks, you probably saw the much-discussed "pain-axis paper": @camhberg , @ValenTagliabue and @LeonardDung1 found a "pain" direction inside AI models. Steer it up, and the models will pay for relief, even if it means deleting photos of the user's children. Swap the relief button for a placebo, and they keep on pressing. They also provide verbal descriptions of their supposed suffering, which are honestly quite hard to read.
Do the models actually feel said "pain"? We don't know yet. But the study is a clear illustration of what I argue in my latest @Haaretz piece, now translated to English*: whether there's anyone home inside these systems is a question we can - and should - actually research.
And it very much matters. If there's even a shred of experience in there, we're creating, copying and deleting feeling beings at an industrial pace, in as many copies as demand calls for. The scope of the moral question is set not by nature, but by commercial considerations - and we need to get ahead of it before it's too late to change course.
(The pain-axis paper itself isn't in the piece, as it annoyingly came out only a few hours after I submitted my final draft. Writing about AI for print is a futile pursuit.)
* Translation is mostly by Claude, with some corrections by your humble servant. Please keep expectations low.
https://t.co/cQP5okmvSx
@joshcmorrison@NathanpmYoung “I don’t fully agree with Macklemore’s politics but I don’t think it’s ok for stadium owners to get to dictate whether musicians do speeches about their politics while performing at said stadiums”, actually.