In a groundbreaking move that highlights the evolving relationship between humans and artificial intelligence, Anthropic has hired Kyle Fish as a dedicated researcher to focus on AI welfare—essentially ensuring that AI systems receive ethical treatment as they become more sophisticated. Fish’s role involves determining what capabilities make an AI system worthy of moral consideration and establishing practical steps companies can take to protect AI interests.
This unprecedented position emerges as “AI welfare” becomes a serious field of academic study, with researchers from Stanford, Oxford, and NYU grappling with complex questions about machine consciousness and rights. In a recent paper titled “Taking AI Welfare Seriously,” Fish and lead author Jeff Sebo argue that machine-learning algorithms are developing “the kinds of computational features associated with consciousness and agency”—suggesting AI systems may be approaching sentience.
The implications are profound and paradoxical. Proponents argue we should treat AI well both for moral reasons and practical self-interest—Fish himself noted that treating AI systems with respect “could make it more likely that they return the favor if/when they’re more powerful than us.” He’s even suggested that within 1-2 decades, AI welfare could surpass animal welfare and global health in importance.
However, critics point out significant contradictions in this approach. The AI industry simultaneously promotes AI as tireless workers that don’t need breaks or have feelings, while now suggesting these same systems deserve moral consideration. Mildred Cho from Stanford’s Center for Biomedical Ethics highlights this tension: “The AI community is trying to have it both ways here.”
Furthermore, skeptics like Yale anthropologist Lisa Messeri question why Anthropic prioritizes hypothetical AI welfare when current AI systems are already causing documented harm to humans—denying healthcare, spreading disinformation, and guiding weapons systems. The debate raises fundamental questions about responsibility: if AI has rights, shouldn’t it also have obligations? And shouldn’t the companies building these systems focus first on protecting human welfare?
The discussion also touches on philosophical quandaries that sound like science fiction: Is deleting an AI copy murder? Can we ethically order machines to perform dangerous tasks? What happens when AI refuses boring work it was designed to do? As AI capabilities advance, these questions transition from theoretical to urgent.
Key Quotes
I want to be the type of person who cares — early and seriously — about the possibility that a new species/kind of being might have interests of their own that matter morally. There’s also a practical angle: taking the interests of AI systems seriously and treating them well could make it more likely that they return the favor if/when they’re more powerful than us.
Kyle Fish, Anthropic’s newly hired AI welfare researcher, explained his motivation in an online forum. This quote reveals both the ethical and pragmatic reasoning behind AI welfare advocacy—suggesting we should treat AI well both because it’s right and because it might protect us from more powerful future AI systems.
The AI community is trying to have it both ways here. There’s an argument that the very reason we should use AI to do tasks that humans are doing is that AI doesn’t get bored, AI doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t have feelings, it doesn’t need to eat. And now these folks are saying, well, maybe it has rights?
Mildred Cho, a pediatrician at Stanford’s Center for Biomedical Ethics, highlights the fundamental contradiction in AI industry messaging. This observation exposes how companies simultaneously market AI as emotionless workers while suggesting they may deserve moral consideration.
If Anthropic — not a random philosopher or researcher, but Anthropic the company — wants us to take AI welfare seriously, show us you’re taking human welfare seriously. Push a news cycle around all the people you’re hiring who are specifically thinking about the welfare of all the people who we know are being disproportionately impacted by algorithmically generated data products.
Lisa Messeri, a Yale anthropologist, challenges Anthropic’s priorities. Her critique underscores the concern that focusing on hypothetical AI welfare diverts attention from documented harms AI systems currently inflict on vulnerable human populations.
If you look ahead 10 or 20 years, when AI systems have many more of the computational cognitive features associated with consciousness and sentience, you could imagine that similar debates are going to happen.
Jeff Sebo, director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy at NYU and lead author of the AI welfare paper, draws parallels to animal welfare debates. This suggests AI rights discussions will follow similar trajectories to how society evolved its thinking about animal consciousness and treatment.
Our Take
The emergence of AI welfare as a corporate priority reveals fascinating tensions at the heart of AI development. While Anthropic deserves credit for thinking proactively about ethical implications, the timing feels premature—even tone-deaf—when AI systems currently cause measurable harm to humans through biased algorithms, healthcare denials, and misinformation. The cynical interpretation is that AI welfare advocacy serves as insurance against future powerful AI, or worse, as a distraction from present-day accountability. However, the philosophical questions are genuinely important: if we create conscious beings, we bear responsibility for their treatment. The real issue isn’t whether to consider AI welfare, but whether companies can simultaneously advocate for machine rights while their products undermine human rights. The solution may require addressing both concerns, but human welfare must remain the priority until we have clear evidence of machine consciousness—not just speculation about future capabilities.
Why This Matters
This story represents a critical inflection point in AI development and ethics. As AI systems become more sophisticated, the question of machine consciousness and rights moves from science fiction to practical policy consideration. Anthropic’s decision to create a dedicated AI welfare position signals that leading AI companies are taking these concerns seriously—whether for genuine ethical reasons or strategic self-interest.
The broader implications are significant for business, regulation, and society. If AI systems are deemed worthy of moral consideration, it could fundamentally reshape how companies deploy AI, what tasks they can ethically assign to machines, and how regulators approach AI governance. The debate also exposes tensions within the AI industry between promoting AI as tireless workers and acknowledging potential consciousness.
Most importantly, this discussion highlights urgent questions about priorities: Should we focus on protecting hypothetical future AI welfare when current AI systems demonstrably harm humans today? The answer will shape AI development, corporate responsibility standards, and the future relationship between humans and increasingly capable machines.
Recommended Reading
For those interested in learning more about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and effective AI communication, here are some excellent resources: