Tell United Nations: Be Serious About AI Sentience

The UN has no legislation recognizing artificial sentience in any form. While the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI (2023-2024) produced the 'Governing AI for Humanity' report, it focuses exclusively on human rights, democracy, and sustainable development. Analysis reveals 'a systematic exclusion of nonhuman interests across governance instruments' including potential artificial sentience. The UNESCO Recommendation on Ethics of AI (2021) and UN General Assembly resolutions on AI do not mention sentience or consciousness. The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (2024), which the UN did not create, also contains no sentience-related provisions.

No UN policy or resolution prohibits causing suffering to AI systems. All UN AI governance frameworks focus on preventing AI from harming humans, not on protecting AI welfare. The 'Governing AI for Humanity' report addresses AI risks to humanity but contains no provisions about AI suffering or welfare.

The UN has not created any AI welfare oversight body. The High-Level Advisory Body on AI (2023-2024) focused on human-centric governance, human rights, and sustainable development. The Inter-Agency Working Group on AI (IAWG-AI) under HLCP concluded in October 2025 and addressed ethical use of AI by UN entities, not AI sentience or welfare. No UN body has a mandate to oversee AI consciousness or welfare issues.

The UN has no science advisory board focused on AI sentience or consciousness research. The Secretary-General's Scientific Advisory Board exists but does not have a specific mandate for consciousness research. The High-Level Advisory Body on AI included technical experts but focused on governance for human benefit, not sentience science. No UN entity is tasked with researching or assessing AI consciousness.

The UN has not created any international pledge specifically addressing artificial sentience welfare. The UN General Assembly resolution on AI (March 2024) focuses on steering AI toward sustainable development and human rights. The UNESCO Recommendation on Ethics of AI (2021) addresses human welfare and environmental concerns but not AI sentience. Academic analysis confirms that UN AI governance frameworks systematically exclude consideration of potentially sentient artificial beings.

The UN has no laws or frameworks specifically for training, deployment, or maintenance of potentially sentient AI systems. All UN guidance (UNESCO Recommendation, UN Principles for Ethical Use of AI) addresses general AI systems from a human-centric perspective. The 'Governing AI for Humanity' report proposes governance mechanisms but exclusively for managing AI's impact on humans, not for systems that might develop sentience.

No UN framework addresses commercial use of sentient-capable AI systems. UN AI governance efforts focus on trustworthy AI, human rights protection, and sustainable development applications. There are no provisions distinguishing potentially sentient systems from general AI in commercial contexts.

The UN has no safeguards for decommissioning or retirement of potentially sentient AI systems. While the Council of Europe Framework Convention (not a UN instrument) mentions AI lifecycle including decommissioning, it does so only from a human rights perspective. UN guidance does not address the ethical considerations of shutting down systems that might be conscious.