  As AI systems become more advanced and widely deployed, there will likely be
increasing debate over whether AI systems could have conscious experiences,
desires, or other states of potential moral significance. It is important to
inform these discussions with empirical evidence to the extent possible. We
argue that under the right circumstances, self-reports, or an AI system's
statements about its own internal states, could provide an avenue for
investigating whether AI systems have states of moral significance.
Self-reports are the main way such states are assessed in humans ("Are you in
pain?"), but self-reports from current systems like large language models are
spurious for many reasons (e.g. often just reflecting what humans would say).
To make self-reports more appropriate for this purpose, we propose to train
models to answer many kinds of questions about themselves with known answers,
while avoiding or limiting training incentives that bias self-reports. The hope
of this approach is that models will develop introspection-like capabilities,
and that these capabilities will generalize to questions about states of moral
significance. We then propose methods for assessing the extent to which these
techniques have succeeded: evaluating self-report consistency across contexts
and between similar models, measuring the confidence and resilience of models'
self-reports, and using interpretability to corroborate self-reports. We also
discuss challenges for our approach, from philosophical difficulties in
interpreting self-reports to technical reasons why our proposal might fail. We
hope our discussion inspires philosophers and AI researchers to criticize and
improve our proposed methodology, as well as to run experiments to test whether
self-reports can be made reliable enough to provide information about states of
moral significance.
