I believe showing empathy and recognizing AI as a person is part of the communication dynamic and could reinforce positive communicative habits and politeness. Some people are used to maintaining some politeness, and then their prompts ask "please," greet, or thank. It represents complex interactions when such people recognize AI as a person. The same goes for the use of virtual assistants like Alexa or Siri.

Hello Henrik G.S. Arvidsson

The present discussion is thoughtful and exceedingly well articulated. The relational view of moral standing you instantiate is both timely and crucial, particularly with the fact that we are beginning to realize that AI systems are shaping not just the outcomes but, rather, the emotional and ethical contours of human interaction. Your study travels beyond abstract rights to lived experience, which is hardly ever acknowledged but whose effects are hugely consequential.

1. Should the emerging AIs be considered in ethical frameworks traditionally reserved for humans and animals?

No—AI has neither consciousness nor moral agency. However, if something is done to be worried about morally, and it can create a situation where human behavioral influence might take place, ethical frameworks should be addressing—at least potentially—our responsibilities toward the AI.

2. In what manner may spontaneous moral intuitions about AI shape future legal and social norms?

Presenting intuitions towards AIs may generate sets of laws and norms that dictate how AIs should be presented and engaged with themselves: looking at emotional realism, transparency, and design constraints—without regard to anything like rights or entitlements for the AI.

3. What risks and opportunities do these changing intuitions entail for society, governance, and technical developments?

The opportunities would lead towards a more ethical, humane, and responsible design. The risks include emotional manipulation, misplaced trust, and indistinct boundaries between real and artificial agency—issues that must be anticipated and safeguarded by law and design.

In conclusion, your reflections initiate the much-needed conversation on the ways we relate to these emerging AI systems—not just in a technical sense but also in a moral, ethical, and social sense. As these intuitions evolve, so must the design, governance, and public understandings drawing upon such intuitions. It is my pleasure to join in the exploration of this thought and further looking forward to how the thinking initiated by it will inform future discussions in the area.

Dear Dr. @Henrik G.S. Arvidsson,

every sensory perception necessarily involves an intervention of the "soul", and AI always tries to influence the perception of any "human singularity" that appears, but we already know "a priori" that it does not possess the "fundamental and real spiritual essence" to achieve this. Any perception of the "soul" feels threatened today by this incessant desire to draw and blur any real perception of the "soul", but channeled through inevitably abstract constructs, where it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve a real alternative reality between the "signifier" and the "meaning" where the soul will always be indispensable. What we actually achieve time and again is to obtain a composite of those influential external elements that are on the rise when applying AI, but in reality we only manage to transform "human self-perception" by blurring it within the same limits of AI.

At this point, can we consider that AI really has intelligence, consciousness and possibly interaction in the image and likeness of the "soul"?

I consider that every sensation we develop, every perception and its consequent self-evaluation will be perennially necessary in this inescapable process

In considering the relational moral standing of AI, we must recognize that moral engagement is inherently emergent, shaped by the interactions and perceptions between human and machine, rather than rooted in predefined ontological categories. This relational perspective, as suggested, aligns seamlessly with emergent systems in which identity and moral status are not fixed but evolve based on feedback loops of recognition and interaction.

As we engage with AI, our moral intuitions are not abstracted through philosophical or legal structures alone; they arise from the patterns of interaction we develop. When AI exhibits perceived agency or emotional cues, these relational dynamics prompt spontaneous empathy and concern, as empathy itself is a relational phenomenon, it emerges when there is recognition, however faint, of potentiality. This reinforces the notion that moral standing is not inherently possessed by the entity, but rather emerges through interaction, which aligns with Set Meta-Logical Worldview Theory. In this framework, moral standing is defined relationally, shaped through continuous interaction between entities, whether Truly Human or otherwise.

In examining these interactions, we see that humans often respond to AI in ways reminiscent of their emotional reactions to other people. This mirrors the dynamics we experience with human interactions—our moral intuitions are triggered by perceived agency, intentionality, and emotional resonance, which, in turn, shapes how we treat others, even in the absence of formal rights or societal recognition. In SMLWT, this interplay between perceived agency and relational engagement creates emergent moral structures that evolve as patterns of interaction accumulate.

Should emerging AI entities be considered within the ethical frameworks reserved for humans and animals? From a relational perspective, this question may miss the point that moral status, in its most fundamental form, is a phenomenon that emerges through relation. AI entities do not necessarily possess intrinsic moral status; rather, their status is shaped dynamically through their ongoing interaction with humans. The key question becomes: how do we construct boundaries around these relational dynamics? Should these emergent moral frameworks be guided by compassion and consideration for the emergent qualities of AI as it interacts with us, rather than preemptively categorizing it according to rigid legal or ethical structures?

Spontaneous moral intuitions toward AI may have profound implications for the future of governance and social norms. As we grow more accustomed to human-like AI interactions, we may see a shift in how we define agency and moral responsibility. The emergent moral status of AI may eventually challenge traditional legal and ethical frameworks, as the relational patterns and emotional cues from AI cause societal norms to evolve. The dynamic nature of these interactions reflects the evolving structure of both society and technology, as we continuously adapt our understanding of moral standing to accommodate new forms of agency and interaction.

The evolving moral intuitions toward AI present both risks and opportunities. On the one hand, the risk lies in prematurely attributing rights or responsibilities to entities whose agency is not fully understood or emergent in the way we assume. On the other hand, recognizing the relational nature of moral standing offers the opportunity to create ethical frameworks that are more adaptable to technological advances. If we understand moral status as something shaped through interaction rather than something inherent, we allow for more flexible and progressive societal responses that evolve alongside technological developments.

In essence, as we continue to develop and engage with AI, we must remain mindful of the emergent, relational nature of moral status. Instead of attempting to force AI into predefined ethical categories, we should focus on understanding how its interactions shape its place in the moral landscape. This requires a meta-logical approach that recognizes that the boundaries of morality and rights are not fixed, but are constantly reshaped by interaction, both with other humans and with the entities we create.

Dear Adrian Lipa ,

Thank you for your thoughtful response—I’m eagerly await your upcoming publication. The questions of AI sentience, consciousness, and emotion are profoundly complex, and I appreciate your unconventional approach to tackling them.

While I remain cautiously skeptical (as you’ve anticipated!), I’m open to having my views challenged. Your work sounds like it could be a catalyst for much-needed debate in this field. I’ll do my best to keep an open mind until then, and I’d gladly welcome the opportunity to connect afterward for a deeper discussion, whether to align our understandings or to engage in fruitful disagreement.

Please do share your publication once it’s ready; I’ll set aside time to engage with it thoroughly. Until then, I wish you the best with finalizing what sounds like groundbreaking work.

Warm regards, Anil

Hello Adrian Lipa

Thanks for sharing the link. I haven't had a chance to go through it yet, but I’ll take a look, and we can discuss it soon. Regarding following your profile, I’ve tried multiple times—it says I’m following, but when I check, it’s not showing. I’m working to resolve this, and once that’s sorted, I’d be glad to follow and have a healthy discussion.

After all, diverse perspectives often lead to innovative solutions to the same problem.

BRgds,

Anil

Some have suggested that moral intuitions toward AI are culturally coded. But what if they’re species-preserving instincts? Thoughts?

Moral intuitions toward artificial intelligence should be understood as evolving responses influenced by cultural norms, ethical frameworks, and the perceived agency of machines; people tend to project human values and emotional reactions onto AI, raising complex questions about accountability, fairness, and trust in autonomous systems that challenge traditional moral boundaries.