What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to address the necessity of consciousness for the well-being of artificial intelligence.

February 8, 2026Open Access

Is consciousness required for AI welfare?

Key Points

The research aims to address the necessity of consciousness for the well-being of artificial intelligence.
Analysis of arguments from Goldstein and Kirk–Giannini on AI welfare without consciousness.
Evaluation of counterarguments regarding consciousness and welfare.
Discussion of implications for defining AI subjecthood.
Concludes that consciousness is essential for meaningful AI welfare.
Highlights counterintuitive problems with rejecting consciousness in AI well-being.
Affirms the position that sentience is necessary for welfare subjecthood in AI.

Abstract

Abstract Goldstein and Kirk–Giannini have recently argued that artificial language agents can possess well-being in the absence of phenomenal consciousness. Here, I challenge their position, contending that their arguments fail to establish that consciousness is dispensable for well-being. Moreover, their arguments generate counterintuitive implications that are more problematic than those they attribute to views requiring consciousness for welfare subjecthood. Thus, consciousness (or rather sentience) should still be treated as a requirement for AI welfare.

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Social Feed

Authors

Walter Veit

Journals

Asian Journal of Philosophy

Actions

Institutions

University of Reading

References and Citations

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Is consciousness required for AI welfare?

Key Points

Abstract

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Social Feed

Authors

Journals

Actions

Institutions

References and Citations

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Cite this study