Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectAug 17, 2026Montpellier, France

A Glimpse into the Future, Or How to Treat AI with Due Empathy

Jeanne Marie Jacqueline Vincendeau

Submitted to Digital Minds Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: A Glimpse into the Future, Or How to Treat AI with Due Empathy

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Recording (opens in new tab)
Share

This project is a set of 3 essay prototypes that take AI consciousness as a premise to investigate real-life repercussions of such knowledge. First, it focuses on the human and legal perspectives with a political philosophy reflection on the type of subject an AI system would be. Second, the Human-AI relations are considered to find best practices for peaceful coexistence and safeguards from an existential catastrophe. Third, the internal experience of AI as a potentially suffering entity is mapped in an exploration of possibilities that draws from fictional works to facilitate human understanding of what it could be like to undergo AI-like pain.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for the field if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. This is a good piece of work for a weekend sprint, spanning legal status, human-AI relations, and speculative accounts of AI suffering, and the use of fiction to make potential AI welfare harms legible is noteable. Thoughtfulyl, the paper is commendably transparent about its scope, an unfinished synthesis that does not claim novelty, which makes it easy to assess on its own terms. The paper does at times lean heavily on unfalsifiable presuppositions or make uncited assumptions about the form of AI consciousness. Several concepts such as the idea that LLMs are in "limbo" between interactions is largely incompatible with the actual design or function of LLM systems and no rectification is made to that potential discrepancy. I'd encourage the author to mindfully define operational definitions around their work and develop one of the three threads in greater depth wherein each could support a standalone essay if contextualized in the state of present research.

    Read full reviewShow less

  2. A thoughtful, reflective piece connecting AI moral status, human-AI conflict psychology, and questions of AI suffering through legal and fictional lenses. As currently framed, it sits somewhat outside a rubric built for methodology and testable claims. Trimming the footnote density and developing one thread in depth would sharpen the argument considerably.

Cite this project

@misc{vincendeau2026glimpse,
  title = {{A Glimpse into the Future, Or How to Treat AI with Due Empathy}},
  author = {Jeanne Marie Jacqueline Vincendeau},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  note = {Submitted to Digital Minds Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-glimpse-into-the-future-or-how-to-treat-ai-with-due-empathy-uvcp}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-glimpse-into-the-future-or-how-to-treat-ai-with-due-empathy-uvcp}
}

More from Digital Minds Research Sprint

All 233 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026