Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 7 - 22
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
There
is
a
family
of
cases
at
the
edge
sentience.
In
these
cases,
grave
decisions
hinge
on
whether
we
regard
sentience
(initially
introduced
informally
as
‘ethically
significant
experience’)
to
be
present
or
absent
in
person,
animal,
other
cognitive
system.
The
includes
people
with
disorders
consciousness,
embryos
and
fetuses,
neural
organoids,
animals
(especially
invertebrates),
AI
technologies
that
reproduce
brain
functions
and/or
mimic
human
behaviour.
It
worth
studying
together
not
because
there
moral
equivalence
between
them
but
they
us
similar
types
uncertainty.
We
need
frameworks
for
helping
manage
uncertainty
reach
decisions.
This
book
aims
develop
consistent
precautionary
framework
enshrines
(but
also
goes
beyond)
insight
must
err
side
caution
take
proportionate
steps
risk,
avoid
reckless
negligent
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 77 - 89
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
‘Sentientist’
ethical
outlooks
regard
sentience
as
necessary
and
sufficient
for
having
interests
that
matter
morally
in
their
own
right.
Sentientism
finds
expression
at
least
three
major
secular
theories
(classical
utilitarianism
the
of
Korsgaard
Nussbaum),
well
idea
ahimsa
Indian
thought.
can
be
contrasted
with
various
ways
denying
necessity
and/or
sufficiency
moral
status.
The
possibility
Vulcan-like
beings
who
have
consciousness
aspect
without
valence
suggests
a
qualification
to
pure
sentientism
may
needed.
A
more
serious
challenge
comes
from
agency-centric
rationality-centric
positions.
One
example
is
orthodox
Kantianism,
which
allows
only
indirect
duties
(formally
owed
ourselves)
concerning
non-rational
beings.
Another
Abrahamic
religions,
give
very
limited
standing
non-human
sentient
We
can,
however,
find
all
them
support
stewardship,
including
duty
avoid
causing
gratuitous
suffering.
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 138 - 153
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
How
should
proportionality
be
assessed
in
practice?
A
‘tyranny
of
expert
values’
occurs
when
the
values
advisers
determine
a
policy
decision
without
those
being
properly
scrutinized
by
democratic
process.
Citizens’
assemblies
or
panels
can
an
attractive
way
to
avoid
this
problem.
Moreover,
they
have
advantages
over
elected
and
referendums.
These
are
especially
clear
issue
generates
deep
value
conflicts,
requires
sustained
attention
regular
revisiting,
consideration
interests
beings
who
cannot
vote,
there
reasons
departisanize
issue.
Questions
at
edge
sentience
all
these
properties.
Since
citizens
do
not
generally
scientific
training,
careful
thought
needs
given
structure
deliberation,
so
that
forced
into
position
arbitrating
disagreement.
Their
focus
on
whether
proposed
response
publicly
justified
as
proportionate,
is
candidate.
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 216 - 230
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
Human
neural
organoids
are
showing
great
promise
as
models
of
the
human
brain.
It
would
be
hasty
to
dismiss
possibility
they
could
develop
sentience.
However,
scepticism
about
this
idea
is
appropriate
when
considering
current
(at
time
writing).
This
not
because
their
size,
but
organization:
lack
a
functioning
brainstem
or
anything
equivalent
one.
There
nonetheless
troubling
early
warning
signs
suggesting
that
organoid
research
may
create
forms
sentient
being
in
future.
Researchers
with
very
different
views
basis
sentience
can
unite
behind
‘brainstem
rule’:
if
develops
innervates
registers
and
prioritizes
its
needs,
regulates
arousal,
leads
sleep-wake
cycles,
then
it
candidate.
Artificial
substitutes
also
enough.
If
creation
candidates,
moratorium
(time-limited
ban)
indefinite
ban
on
particular
type
appropriate.
An
alternative
approach,
consistent
existing
approaches
animal
research,
require
ethical
review
harm-benefit
analysis
whenever
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 113 - 137
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
This
chapter
looks
for
points
of
consensus
across
the
zone
reasonable
disagreement.
To
do
this,
it
introduces
two
bridging
concepts:
sentience
candidates
and
investigation
priorities.
Crucially,
relatively
inclusive
theories
Panksepp,
Damasio,
Merker,
which
link
to
evolutionarily
ancient
mechanisms
in
midbrain,
describe
realistic
possibilities,
so
a
system
with
these
is
candidate.
When
evidence
falls
short
showing
that
candidate,
but
there
are
still
welfare
risks
may
call
precautionary
response,
should
be
classed
as
an
priority.
There
ethical
around
duty
avoid
causing
gratuitous
suffering
sentient
beings.
Suffering
not
if
occurs
course
defensible
activity.
activity
indefensible
or
precautions
taken
fall
what
proportionate.
These
ideas
lead
principle
proportionate
whenever
being
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 173 - 191
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
Sometimes
a
person,
after
brain
injury,
displays
sleep-wake
cycles
but
has
severely
impaired,
or
entirely
absent,
responses
to
external
stimuli.
Traditionally,
attempts
have
been
made
distinguish
the
persistent
vegetative
state
(PVS)
from
minimally
conscious
(MCS).
However,
diagnostic
procedures
are
subject
high
error
rates
and
uncertainty.
There
is
also
realistic
possibility
that
midbrain
mechanisms
suffice
for
basic
valenced
experiences
even
if
cortical
injury
fully
prevents
patient
reporting
these
experiences.
Decisions
withdraw
treatment
should
be
based
on
comprehensive
best-interests
assessment,
not
PVS/MCS
distinction.
The
method
of
withdrawing
clinically
assisted
nutrition
hydration
(CANH)
would
acceptable
any
other
sentient
being,
alternatives
must
explored
discussed
by
inclusive,
democratic
processes.
In
cases
where
CANH
withdrawal
authorized,
clinicians
guaranteed
hastening
death
using
large
doses
sedatives
analgesics
will
lead
punishment.
Oxford University Press eBooks,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 323 - 331
Published: July 22, 2024
Abstract
Given
the
rate
at
which
AI
is
developing,
and
risks
associated
with
artificial
sentience
taking
us
by
surprise,
we
should
apply
run-ahead
principle:
any
given
time,
measures
to
regulate
development
of
sentient
run
ahead
what
would
be
proportionate
posed
current
technology,
considering
also
credible
future
trajectories.
The
principle
may
potentially
justify
strong
regulatory
action,
but
a
moratorium
go
beyond
reasonably
necessary
manage
risk.
An
alternative
proposal,
involving
regular
testing
monitor
our
creations,
currently
unfeasible,
due
absence
tests
that
can
applied
large
language
models
other
systems
high
potential
for
gaming
criteria.
A
third
approach
involves
oversight
means
sector-wide
codes
good
practice
licensing
schemes.
This
path
require
greater
level
transparency
than
have
seen
from
industry
date.
overarching
imperative
democratic
debate
about
these
questions
now.
