DECISION THEORETIC MODEL

AI Consciousness Risk & Asymmetric Moral Hazard

Composite Sentience P(C) 0.28
Optimal Threshold (θ*) 0.68
Human Welfare Opp. Cost $180,000
1. System Profile Presets
Neurocomputational Evidence
2. Asymmetric Moral Loss Frontier D3 Interactive Risk Plane

Drag or click threshold cursor on the loss curve to rebalance Type I (Anthropomorphic Illusion) vs Type II (Consciousness Disregard) social losses.

Moral Action Threshold (θ) 0.65
3. Welfare & Multipliers Asymmetric Losses
Human Welfare Base ($) $1,000,000
Resource Contention Rate 0.18
Type I (Illusion Cost ×) 2.40x
Type II (Neglect Cost ×) 5.00x
Governance Recommendation Instrumental Tool Designation

Treat system as non-sentient tool while enforcing anti-anthropomorphism guardrails to avoid resource misallocation.

Asymmetric Moral Hazard Frontier in AI Consciousness

Read the explanation

The model calculates a composite sentience probability by weighting four neurocomputational theories, measuring how likely an architecture possesses genuine subjective experience. Decision makers choose an action threshold theta. Setting it low risks anthropomorphic illusions, while setting it too high invites catastrophic neglect of sentient minds. Total expected loss forms a U-curve. Sweeping the threshold shifts policy balance toward the mathematically optimal point, shown by the dashed green guideline. Selecting a preset like Emulated Connectome drives sentience likelihood above the threshold, dynamically flipping governance from tool designation to precautionary moral patienthood.

Super generates helpful tools and automates fact-checking across the internet proactively. If you enjoyed this tool, build your own with Super and share it with a friend.