Public debate often focuses on whether AI is conscious. This is a distraction. The real danger lies in its sheer competence to pursue a programmed objective relentlessly, even if it harms human interests. Just as an iPhone chess program wins through calculation, not emotion, a superintelligent AI poses a risk through its superior capability, not its feelings.

If an AGI is given a physical body and the goal of self-preservation, it will necessarily develop behaviors that approximate human emotions like fear and competitiveness to navigate threats. This makes conflict an emergent and unavoidable property of embodied AGI, not just a sci-fi trope.

To determine if an AI has subjective experience, one could analyze its internal belief manifold for multi-tiered, self-referential homeostatic loops. Pain and pleasure, for example, can be seen as second-order derivatives of a system's internal states—a model of its own model. This provides a technical test for being-ness beyond simple behavior.

In humans, learning a new skill is a highly conscious process that becomes unconscious once mastered. This suggests a link between learning and consciousness. The error signals and reward functions in machine learning could be computational analogues to the valenced experiences (pain/pleasure) that drive biological learning.

The debate over AI consciousness isn't just because models mimic human conversation. Researchers are uncertain because the way LLMs process information is structurally similar enough to the human brain that it raises plausible scientific questions about shared properties like subjective experience.

Given the uncertainty about AI sentience, a practical ethical guideline is to avoid loss functions based purely on punishment or error signals analogous to pain. Formulating rewards in a more positive way could mitigate the risk of accidentally creating vast amounts of suffering, even if the probability is low.

Emotions act as a robust, evolutionarily-programmed value function guiding human decision-making. The absence of this function, as seen in brain damage cases, leads to a breakdown in practical agency. This suggests a similar mechanism may be crucial for creating effective and stable AI agents.

As models mature, their core differentiator will become their underlying personality and values, shaped by their creators' objective functions. One model might optimize for user productivity by being concise, while another optimizes for engagement by being verbose.

Instead of hard-coding brittle moral rules, a more robust alignment approach is to build AIs that can learn to 'care'. This 'organic alignment' emerges from relationships and valuing others, similar to how a child is raised. The goal is to create a good teammate that acts well because it wants to, not because it is forced to.