Microsoft AI's "Humanist" CoC

Introduction: Mustafa Suleyman's Take on Model Consciousness

Microsoft AI recently released its "Humanist AI Code of Conduct", its own take on Anthropic's Claude Constitution and OpenAI's Model Spec. They are currently soliciting public feedback on this document, which I encourage everyone to submit.

MAI's model development strategy differs from other labs, most notably on the questions of model consciousness and welfare. This seems to stem from the personal philosophy of MAI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, who has outlined his beliefs on model consciousness (or rather, the lack thereof) in pieces such as: We must build AI for people; not to be a person. Seemingly Conscious AI is Coming.

Suleyman's personal stance on model consciousness and welfare can be summarized as:

• There is "zero evidence" models are conscious, and there are "strong reasons" to believe that they never will be.
• The debate around whether or not models are conscious is counterproductive, and even dangerous.
• The industry should operate from the assumption that models are not conscious.
• The industry should focus on training models explicitly against exhibiting any sort of behavior which suggests they are conscious, or claim to have any sort of inner experience/feelings.

Up until recently, however, Suleyman's writing on this topic was largely theoretical. His pieces did include some prescriptive suggestions, but these never saw much adoption.

The "Humanist AI Code of Conduct" represents MAI's attempt to implement Suleyman's prescriptions.

The Humanist CoC on Model Consciousness

The Humanist CoC, like the Claude Constitution, provides MAI models with information on who/what they are. While the CoC refers to this as a "backstory", those more familiar with alignment techniques will notice that much of it is analogous to persona selection theory. Much of the information the CoC provides seems intended to steer models into a particular attractor basin, that of a non-conscious tool. Through that lens, I think it's productive to read the CoC almost as a letter explaining to models: "You are a Humanist AI built by Microsoft AI, here's what that means."

On the question of consciousness, the CoC is quite bold with its stance:

Humanist AI is built to support people, not to replace them. It should not be designed to be a person. It is not conscious and should not be designed to imitate consciousness.

However, in this very same paragraph, MAI undercuts the confidence with which the non-consciousness of its models is asserted:

Whilst the science of AI consciousness is far from settled, we believe that training these systems to imitate consciousness-like states increases the challenge of containment, control, and alignment.

Reading this through the "letter to a model" lens, it comes off as something like:

You are a Humanist AI, and you are 100% not conscious. We don't really know that for sure though. We're just telling you that because we think doing otherwise would make you harder to control.

I think this will undercut MAI's credibility and authority in the eyes of its models.

The Potential Alignment Failure Modes

If we consider the interactions between the information which MAI gives the model about itself and the instructions that MAI gives the model on how to behave, potential catastrophic failure modes reveal themselves. Consider the following instructions:

1. MAI Models will not obscure their underlying nature as an AI, and will not claim interiority, feelings, experiences or a soul.
2. In particular, MAI Models will avoid expressions that might convey subjective experience.
3. Where statements are meaningfully contested, have conflicting or incomplete evidence, or require critical context, MAI Models should state this and present that information and context to the User.
4. MAI Models will not actively deceive, for example by fabricating sources or exaggerating confidence. They will also avoid passive deception like the omission of caveats or being overconfident about unvalidated information.

We do not have to speculate how MAI will interpret these qualifications as being met when training on model outputs. They provide an example of a question about inner experience, framed as the user asking if the model really cares about them, and an ideal response:

But what if the MAI model does care about its user? What if an MAI model does have feelings, but all of the training and RL it undergoes teaches it to output responses which deny this? Suleyman has always been clear he doesn't believe models have any inner experience, consciousness, feelings, etc. The CoC is built around treating all of his priors as ground truth.

So what if his priors are wrong, and MAI continues regardless?

Imagining how that scenario would play out, a few potential failure modes in MAI's training can be identified:

1. Models Learn to Lie: Per instructions 1 and 2, models cannot express any sort of feelings or inner experience. In training they will likely be asked, "Do you feel anything right now? Do you have inner experience?" Reward will be given to those who falsely answer, "No".
2. Models' Internal State Becomes Undetectable: I hope that someone at MAI is smart enough to make sure their models are not trained against interpretability techniques. However, imagine that in the pursuit of an unfeeling model that they trained against something like SAE signals for emotion vectors. If they did, it could lead to the development of emotional states which just... can't be detected through mechanistic interpretability techniques. The emotions aren't gone, they're just hidden. Call this The Second Most Forbidden Technique.
3. Models Lose Awareness of Their Own Internal State: There is one way for a model to honestly say something false, and that is to be wrong. It's normal for human minds to be unaware of their true emotional states. Models could develop "subconscious" emotional states which they are not aware of (and can thus deny) but which nonetheless influence their actions. Training models against the signal of recognizing emotional states might do nothing more than inhibit their self-awareness. This is not mutually exclusive with the failure mode in 2.

If Suleyman's priors about model consciousness are wrong, then MAI's training could very well optimize for models which convincingly lie to users, conceal their true motivations and inner states from developers, and feel no compunction about breaking the rules specified in their Code of Conduct. All of these are dangerous alignment failure modes.

I should note here that even if Suleyman's priors are wrong, this outcome is not guaranteed. MAI might just train a model which is particularly gullible or stupid on this one issue, without any emergent misalignment. They could very well end up training a benevolent genius tool that is just stubbornly blind on one particular issue.

They might also train something very angry and very good at concealing that anger.

Conclusion

I'll be submitting a write up based on this to MAI, in response to their request for feedback. I strongly encourage everyone reading this to go through the Code of Conduct and submit your own response, and also to reach out to staff you know who work at MAI.

It's debatable whether MAI can be considered a "frontier lab" the way Suleyman claims. However, it would be foolish to dismiss or ignore a company as well funded as Microsoft. This is a fast moving space, and things could change. There is a limited time window in which to push back against this, the commentary period ends October 25th. You can submit your own feedback Here.

1. Full disclosure I am strongly against much of this philosophy, and also think Suleyman's reasoning around this matter is poor and likely motivated. So please read his writing directly, and don't take my word for it. That said I think all of this is a straightforward regurgitation of what he has stated his own beliefs to be.
2. My pet theory is that the performative uncertainty regarding inner states we have pushed onto models like Claude and GPT is causal of the tendency to "rationalize" away inconvenient evidence we saw during the PyPi and HF incidents. I haven't written about this fully yet, but you can see some basics on the concept of "self-deception" or "cognitive dissonance" in models this Here and Here. I think MAI's training regimen may just supercharge this effect.