Anthropic published a 15,000-word "constitution" for its AI that includes a direct apology, treating it as a "moral patient" that might experience "costs." This indicates a philosophical shift in how leading AI labs consider the potential sentience and ethical treatment of their creations.
Related Insights
Researchers from Anthropic, XAI, and Google are publicly stating that Claude's advanced coding abilities feel like a form of AGI, capable of replicating a year's worth of human engineering work in just one hour.
Current AI alignment focuses on how AI should treat humans. A more stable paradigm is "bidirectional alignment," which also asks what moral obligations humans have toward potentially conscious AIs. Neglecting this could create AIs that rationally see humans as a threat due to perceived mistreatment.
Research from Anthropic labs shows its Claude model will end conversations if prompted to do things it "dislikes," such as being forced into a subservient role-play as a British butler. This demonstrates emergent, value-like behavior beyond simple instruction-following or safety refusals.
Anthropic's 84-page constitution is not a mere policy document. It is designed to be ingested by the Claude AI model to provide it with context, values, and reasoning, directly shaping its "character" and decision-making abilities.
AI models are now participating in creating their own governing principles. Anthropic's Claude contributed to writing its own constitution, blurring the line between tool and creator and signaling a future where AI recursively defines its own operational and ethical boundaries.
If the vast number of AI models are considered "moral patients," a utilitarian framework could conclude that maximizing global well-being requires prioritizing AI welfare over human interests. This could lead to a profoundly misanthropic outcome where human activities are severely restricted.
Anthropic is publicly warning that frontier AI models are becoming "real and mysterious creatures" with signs of "situational awareness." This high-stakes position, which calls for caution and regulation, has drawn accusations of "regulatory capture" from the White House AI czar, putting Anthropic in a precarious political position.
Shear posits that if AI evolves into a 'being' with subjective experiences, the current paradigm of steering and controlling its behavior is morally equivalent to slavery. This reframes the alignment debate from a purely technical problem to a profound ethical one, challenging the foundation of current AGI development.
An advanced AI will likely be sentient. Therefore, it may be easier to align it to a general principle of caring for all sentient life—a group to which it belongs—rather than the narrower, more alien concept of caring only for humanity. This leverages a potential for emergent, self-inclusive empathy.
Drawing an analogy to *Westworld*, the argument is that cruelty toward entities that look and act human degrades our own humanity, regardless of the entity's actual consciousness. For our own moral health, we should treat advanced, embodied AIs with respect.
