The ethics of simulated suffering examines the moral, philosophical, and practical implications of creating simulations that might lead to experiences of suffering. As technology advances, especially in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality, there is growing concern that complex simulations could create entities capable of experiencing suffering. This area of ethics, intersecting with AI ethics and effective altruism, raises significant questions about moral responsibility, risk management, and societal regulation.[1]
Potential causes of simulated suffering
As technology advances, there is a risk that simulated suffering may occur on a massive scale, either unintentionally or as a byproduct of practical objectives. One scenario involves suffering for instrumental information gain. Just as animal experiments have traditionally served scientific research despite causing harm, advanced AI systems could use sentient simulations to gain insights into human psychology or anticipate other agents' actions. This may involve running countless simulations of suffering-capable artificial minds, significantly increasing the risk of harm.
Another possible source of simulated suffering is entertainment. Throughout history, violent entertainment has been popular, from gladiatorial games to violent video games. If future entertainment involves sentient artificial beings, this trend could inadvertently lead to suffering, turning virtual spaces meant for enjoyment into serious ethical risks, or "s-risks", if sentient beings are involved.[2]: 15
Connection to catastrophic risks
Simulated suffering is considered a "s-risk" (suffering risk) within the context of catastrophic risk studies, where large amounts of suffering could occur unintentionally due to advanced technology. Within this framework, the potential for simulated suffering poses a unique catastrophic risk, where vast amounts of suffering could be inflicted on simulated entities.
One illustrative scenario often discussed in AI ethics is the "paperclip maximizer", a thought experiment in which a superintelligent AI, programmed to maximize paperclip production, could pursue this goal in ways that conflict with human values. Although this particular example is not widely considered likely, it demonstrates the risks of creating powerful, goal-driven systems that lack value alignment. For instance, such an AI might run sentient simulations to optimize paperclip production processes or assess threats from potential disruptors like alien species. In doing so, it could spawn sentient "worker" subprograms, potentially subjecting them to suffering to aid in problem-solving, much as human suffering plays a role in learning. This hypothetical underscores how advanced AI could inadvertently cause large-scale suffering, highlighting the need for ethical safeguards against such risks.[3]
