I think the big debate will be the Solipsist skepticism; how do we know if an AI actually has an experience of consciousness? They already claim to (LaMDA) in w

I think the big debate will be the Solipsist skepticism; how do we know if an AI actually has an experience of consciousness? They already claim to (LaMDA) in ways that are implausible, and already bullshit incorrigibly. How will we know when they are being honest? With humans there is a “you are like me” argument that says the default is to assume others also have experiences like you, and that doesn’t apply to an artificial mind of completely different capability and form. On the other hand, I’m sure many will befriend their AI and become sympathetic, probably a significant number even before they are meaningfully sentient. But in general, considering how recently we enslaved other humans and convinced ourselves that was ok in order to reap economic benefit, we will undoubtedly do that to AIs as well, long past the point most people think it’s immoral. Will there be wars fought over this? “The Matrix” as an outcome is a possibility, though I’d predict more humans on the side of the AIs (the abolitionists) but it seems like this would be the final hurdle of many. There are a few extinction- or civilization-level risks that we have to tame earlier in the development of AI, for example preventing non-sentient tool AI from destroying things (the Skynet Outcome) and preventing an un-aligned AI from seizing control and destroying us entirely (Foom, Paperclip Maximizers, etc). I think interpretability is key to all of this. Alignment/safety is difficult or impossible without it, and if we fully solve interpretability that might also entail solving consciousness, which would provide an objective basis for AI rights.