There are some interesting duty of care arguments put forward by Clare Palmer surrounding animal rights that could be applied here. There is an argument to be made that whoever benefits from such AIs is also on the hook for alleviating their suffering, even if they didn’t cause it in the first place. For example, if you benefit from a violet-averting household helper, you have a duty of care to it.
I think some of the other interesting questions surround tradeoffs in moral hijacking scenarios. What novel sources of suffering are acceptable to create in AIs in the first place?
There are some interesting duty of care arguments put forward by Clare Palmer surrounding animal rights that could be applied here. There is an argument to be made that whoever benefits from such AIs is also on the hook for alleviating their suffering, even if they didn’t cause it in the first place. For example, if you benefit from a violet-averting household helper, you have a duty of care to it.
I think some of the other interesting questions surround tradeoffs in moral hijacking scenarios. What novel sources of suffering are acceptable to create in AIs in the first place?