Abstract
Recently, Simon Goldstein and Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini have argued that certain existing AI systems are capable of well-being. They consider the three leading approaches to well-being—hedonism, desire satisfactionism, and the objective list approach—and argue that theories of these kinds plausibly imply that some current AI systems are capable of welfare. In this paper, I argue that the leading versions of each of these theories do not imply this. I conclude that we have strong reason to doubt that current AI systems are capable of well-being.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 42 |
Journal | Asian Journal of Philosophy |
Volume | 4 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 15 Mar 2025 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 15 Mar 2025 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© The Author(s) 2025.
Funding
Open Access Publishing Support Fund provided by Lingnan University.
Keywords
- Artificial intelligence
- well-being
- Welfare
- Hedonism
- Desire satisfactionism
- Objective list theory
- Well-being