Suffering in simulations

Suffering in simulations refers to the ethical, philosophical, and metaphysical implications of conscious or potentially conscious experiences of suffering occurring within simulated realities. As advances in artificial intelligence and virtual environments increasingly blur the boundary between simulated agents and sentient beings, scholars have begun examining whether suffering experienced in simulations may hold moral weight comparable to suffering in non-simulated ("base") reality.

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.^[1]: 15

Simulation theodicy

David Chalmers introduces the idea of simulation theodicy in his work Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. He proposes several possible explanations for the presence of suffering in simulated realities, paralleling traditional religious theodicies that reconcile the existence of evil with a benevolent creator.^[2]

Possible justifications include the use of suffering as a moral testing ground, as a means of fostering empathy, courage, and resilience, or as a method of enhancing the realism and engagement of a simulation. Additionally, some suffering may be a result of technical limitations or stem from inscrutable motives held by simulators. Another angle within simulation theodicy speculates that suffering might be an unintended byproduct of emergent complexity. In highly intricate simulations, phenomena like suffering could arise spontaneously rather than being explicitly programmed.

This ambiguity mirrors traditional concerns about natural evil in theology and blurs the line between intentional design and emergent harm, raising the question of whether simulators have a duty to prevent such outcomes within their creations.^[3]

Ethical and moral considerations

Simulated consciousness and moral equivalence

A key question is whether simulated suffering is ontologically and ethically equivalent to real suffering. One study explores whether advanced AIs that mimic human emotional responses are merely imitative or genuinely conscious.^[4] It argues that if suffering can be precisely modeled, the simulation process itself might produce genuine suffering. This raises philosophical challenges about consciousness thresholds and whether small deviations in emotional modeling affect the moral status of simulated beings.

Some theorists hold that, regardless of biological substrate, behavioral and affective similarities to human suffering warrant moral consideration. This aligns with functionalist theories, which prioritize informational patterns over physical form. Critics, including biological essentialists and proponents of integrated information theory, argue consciousness requires specific physical structures or information integration levels absent in simulations. Without clear criteria, extending moral concern to simulated entities risks ethical overreach or misallocated efforts.^[3]

Tensions with post-scarcity ethics

The Simulation Argument intersects with the Hedonistic Imperative, which aims to abolish biological suffering through technology. If posthuman civilizations have eliminated suffering, it seems irrational they would reintroduce it via ancestor-simulations.^[5]

This paradox suggests several possibilities: posthumans may not create such simulations; they might simulate suffering for reasons like realism or authenticity; or they may value reproducing human conditions, including pain. Thus, the suffering observed in our perceived reality may reflect design choices or limits in posthuman simulations.

Some digital sentience advocates propose that advanced civilizations tolerate or reproduce suffering for historical accuracy, moral experimentation, or aesthetic exploration. They might simulate morally complex environments to study ethical dynamics such as inequality, violence, or emotional distress.^[3]

Partial simulations and ethical oversight

Attention has been drawn to the so-called "Size Question," which suggests that our reality could be a small-scale or short-lived simulation, limited in extent or duration.^[6] This raises epistemic concerns about the fragility of our perceived reality and introduces moral hazards. If only parts of reality or populations are simulated, broad utilitarian ethics may not apply straightforwardly.

Resource-saving measures that truncate simulated lives could cause trauma, confusion, or illusory freedom for inhabitants. This stresses the ethical obligation to ensure the qualitative well-being of even transient or partial simulations.^[3]

Connection to catastrophic risks

Some scholars have warned about the risks of vast future suffering caused by large-scale simulations run by superintelligent agents or posthuman civilizations.^[3] These simulations might recreate detailed scenarios such as evolution, wild animal suffering, or adversarial future planning. They could be used to test strategies or explore hypothetical minds, potentially causing massive moral harm if sentient suffering is created as part of the computational process.

Within catastrophic risk studies, simulated suffering is categorized as an "s-risk" (suffering risk), where advanced technologies could unintentionally cause immense suffering to simulated entities. One well-known example in AI ethics is the "paperclip maximizer" thought experiment, where a superintelligent AI programmed to maximize paperclip production might pursue its goal in ways harmful to human values. Though unlikely, this scenario illustrates how powerful, goal-driven AI systems without proper value alignment could run sentient simulations to optimize production or assess threats. These simulations might spawn sentient "worker" subprograms subjected to suffering, similar to how human suffering can aid learning. This highlights the potential for advanced AI to cause large-scale suffering unintentionally and underscores the need for ethical safeguards.^{[7][better source needed]}

See also

• Simulation hypothesis
• Problem of evil
• Negative utilitarianism
• Artificial consciousness
• Philosophy of mind