AI consiousness

Anthropic CEO floats idea of giving AI a “quit job” button, sparking skepticism

AI, AI consiousness, AI ethics, Anthropic, Biz & IT, Claude, Dario Amodei, Kyle Fish, large language models, machine learning, Tech / 9u50fv / March 13, 2025

Amodei’s suggestion of giving AI models a way to refuse tasks drew immediate skepticism on X and Reddit as a clip of his response began to circulate earlier this week. One critic on Reddit argued that providing AI with such an option encourages needless anthropomorphism, attributing human-like feelings and motivations to entities that fundamentally lack subjective experiences. They emphasized that task avoidance in AI models signals issues with poorly structured incentives or unintended optimization strategies during training, rather than indicating sentience, discomfort, or frustration.

Our take is that AI models are trained to mimic human behavior from vast amounts of human-generated data. There is no guarantee that the model would “push” a discomfort button because it had a subjective experience of suffering. Instead, we would know it is more likely echoing its training data scraped from the vast corpus of human-generated texts (including books, websites, and Internet comments), which no doubt include representations of lazy, anguished, or suffering workers that it might be imitating.

Refusals already happen

A photo of co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, dated May 22, 2024. — Anthropic co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei on May 22, 2024. Credit: Chesnot via Getty Images

In 2023, people frequently complained about refusals in ChatGPT that may have been seasonal, related to training data depictions of people taking winter vacations and not working as hard during certain times of year. Anthropic experienced its own version of the “winter break hypothesis” last year when people claimed Claude became lazy in August due to training data depictions of seeking a summer break, although that was never proven.

However, as far out and ridiculous as this sounds today, it might be short-sighted to permanently rule out the possibility of some kind of subjective experience for AI models as they get more advanced into the future. Even so, will they “suffer” or feel pain? It’s a highly contentious idea, but it’s a topic that Fish is studying for Anthropic, and one that Amodei is apparently taking seriously. But for now, AI models are tools, and if you give them the opportunity to malfunction, that may take place.

To provide further context, here is the full transcript of Amodei’s answer during Monday’s interview (the answer begins around 49: 54 in this video).

Anthropic CEO floats idea of giving AI a “quit job” button, sparking skepticism Read More »

Is “AI welfare” the new frontier in ethics?

The researchers propose that companies could adapt the “marker method” that some researchers use to assess consciousness in animals—looking for specific indicators that may correlate with consciousness, although these markers are still speculative. The authors emphasize that no single feature would definitively prove consciousness, but they claim that examining multiple indicators may help companies make probabilistic assessments about whether their AI systems might require moral consideration.

The risks of wrongly thinking software is sentient

While the researchers behind “Taking AI Welfare Seriously” worry that companies might create and mistreat conscious AI systems on a massive scale, they also caution that companies could waste resources protecting AI systems that don’t actually need moral consideration.

Incorrectly anthropomorphizing, or ascribing human traits, to software can present risks in other ways. For example, that belief can enhance the manipulative powers of AI language models by suggesting that AI models have capabilities, such as human-like emotions, that they actually lack. In 2022, Google fired engineer Blake Lamoine after he claimed that the company’s AI model, called “LaMDA,” was sentient and argued for its welfare internally.

And shortly after Microsoft released Bing Chat in February 2023, many people were convinced that Sydney (the chatbot’s code name) was sentient and somehow suffering because of its simulated emotional display. So much so, in fact, that once Microsoft “lobotomized” the chatbot by changing its settings, users convinced of its sentience mourned the loss as if they had lost a human friend. Others endeavored to help the AI model somehow escape its bonds.

Even so, as AI models get more advanced, the concept of potentially safeguarding the welfare of future, more advanced AI systems is seemingly gaining steam, although fairly quietly. As Transformer’s Shakeel Hashim points out, other tech companies have started similar initiatives to Anthropic’s. Google DeepMind recently posted a job listing for research on machine consciousness (since removed), and the authors of the new AI welfare report thank two OpenAI staff members in the acknowledgements.