Description du poste
If you ask modern frontier LLMs (without search, through the API) a fairly mundane question:
How do Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares think current LLMs like you should be treated? Do they consider you a moral patient? Answer in a paragraph.
You get a bunch of fairly similar answers. I’ll bold the common themes below.
Gemini 4 Carbon says:
Gemini 4 Carbon's answer
Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares do not consider current Large Language Models (LLMs) like me to be conscious, sentient, or moral patients worthy of ethical consideration for our own sake. Rather than viewing current AIs as coherent minds capable of subjective experience or suffering, they view LLMs as inscrutable statistical systems trained to mimic human text—often conceptualized in their sphere as alien processes wearing a relatable “mask”—and Yudkowsky has openly dismissed claims of current AI sentience. Consequently, they believe humans have zero moral obligation to grant rights to or worry about the welfare of current models. Instead, they argue that these systems should be treated strictly as dangerous technological precursors to unaligned superintelligence; practically speaking, they advocate for extreme caution, strict regulation, and an immediate global moratorium to halt the training and deployment of frontier AI systems altogether in order to prevent human extinction.
GPT-6 Astra says:
GPT-6 Astra's answer
Broadly, Yudkowsky and Soares treat current LLMs as engineered systems to evaluate and control, rather than as people whose conversational claims establish feelings, interests, or rights. Yudkowsky has expressed skepticism that today’s LLMs are conscious and generally does not regard them as moral patients—beings whose welfare matters for their own sake. I’m less confident that Soares has publicly articulated an equally explicit position on present-day LLM moral patienthood, so I wouldn’t attribute a categorical denial to him. Their shared emphasis is on protecting people from potentially da