<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Taking AI Welfare Seriously · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.00986/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.00986/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Taking AI Welfare Seriously — mentioned by anonu</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917249</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2411.00986:44917249</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:06:19 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Anthropic hired their first AI Welfare person in late 2024. Here&amp;#x27;s an article about a paper that came out around the same time https://www.transformernews.ai/p/ai-welfare-paper Here&amp;#x27;s the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986 &amp;gt; In this report, we argue that there is a realistic possibility that some AI systems will be conscious and/or robustly agentic in the near future. Our work on AI is like the classic tale of Frankenstein&amp;#x27;s monster. We want AI to fit into society, however if we mistreat it, it may turn around and take revenge on us. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818! So the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.00986/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item><item><title>Taking AI Welfare Seriously — mentioned by bbor</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44258627</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2411.00986:44258627</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:02:13 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re not ascribing consciousness, they&amp;#x27;re investigating the possibility. We all agreed with Turing 75 years ago that deciding whether a machine is &amp;quot;truly thinking&amp;quot; or not is a meaningless, unscientific question -- what changed? It doesn&amp;#x27;t help that this critique is badly researched: The Anthropic researchers do not really define their terms or explain in depth why they think that &amp;quot;model welfare&amp;quot; should be a concern. Maybe check the [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986) instead of the blog post describing the paper? Saying that there is no scientific *consensus* on the consciousness of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2411.00986/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item></channel></rss>
