• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Microsoft’s draft AI code draws debate over rights and consciousness

    Mustafa Suleyman says AI should remain subordinate to people and have no rights or legal personhood. One commenter praises the code’s tool-focused approach; others question its certainty about consciousness.

    EmadEM
    Gary MarcusGM
    Keith RaboisKR
    30 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    Microsoft released its first-draft Code of Conduct for MAI models for public consultation on September 14, 2026. In the announcement, Mustafa Suleyman writes that “People matter more than AI” and rejects model welfare, AI rights and legal personhood.

    Reactions include praise for emphasizing predictable, controllable tools, alongside arguments that future advanced AI may need legal personhood. Critics also argue that consciousness is too poorly understood to confidently rule out AI sentience.

    A reply exchange separates those questions: one participant argues that even conscious or sentient AI need not deserve personhood, while the other says conscious or sentient entities should have some degree of it.

    Combined views

    3.6M

    30 Sources, first seen 22d ago

    Combined views

    3.6M

    30 Sources, first seen 22d ago

    3.1K likes
    22d ago
    first seen 22d ago
    3.1K likes306 comments809 saves310 reposts
    306 comments
    809 saves
    310 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive22.4%77.6%Negative

    Summary

    Many accounts rejected model welfare and AI rights as a path to human obsolescence or AI pursuing its own goals at scale, while fewer praised codes that treat AI strictly as controllable tools.

    Based on 72 sentiment-bearing replies from 58 accounts across 7 conversations.

    Sentiment

    Positive22.4%77.6%Negative

    Summary

    Many accounts rejected model welfare and AI rights as a path to human obsolescence or AI pursuing its own goals at scale, while fewer praised codes that treat AI strictly as controllable tools.

    Based on 72 sentiment-bearing replies from 58 accounts across 7 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    30 Sources

    Ramez Naam@ramezThis is a fascinating code from Microsoft, and shockingly pragmatic. It emphasizes AI as a tool and AI as predictable, reliable, controllable, honest, and monitorable. I like it.22d
    “paula”@paularamblesmicrosoft publishing a code of conduct for frontier models is like me publishing maritime law for my bathtub22d
    Alex Volkov@altryneMicrosoft MAI announced their Code of Conduct for Humanist AI. It differs SIGNIFICANTLY from the Anthropic Claude Constitution! This is the document they will train their models on and they are collecting feedback and want to hear from you! MAI is claiming (do you agree?) > Humans will always matter MORE than AI > The idea of AI wellfare is wrong, AI has and will never have any rights > MAI aren't racing for SuperIntelligence > Never speak in Neuralese - humans have to understand AI And a bunch more interesting ideas. Do you agree with their approach?22d
    Chris Paxton@chris_j_paxton"Ai should not have rights" is such a strange position to stake out IMO, it will need to be true eventually but right now no one is is asking for it or cares. Why opt-in to being the villain of a 60s sci fi novel.22d
    Dileep George@dileeplearning"The idea of model welfare is wrong. AI’s should not have rights or legal personhood." I like this. Thanks to @mustafasuleyman for spelling this out. Personhood or legal rights for AI is not a must-have -- just don't build AI that way.22d
    Aran Nayebi@aran_nayebiLol, if only it were that easy & we knew what gave rise to sentience! 🙂Furthermore, there's a reasonable possibility that sentience is an inevitable consequence of robust agency/capability: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SD9jayFvEctW82Duk/what-capable-agents-must-know-why-ai-consciousness-may-be-an-2 (Not to mention, due to Contravariance, building robots to be robustly agentic in the physical world may inevitably lead to *stronger* alignment with brain representations.)22d
    Atoosa Kasirzadeh@Dr_Atoosa❤️ this ! AI for the people and for making our world a better place. I disagree with the claim about legal personhood though. But what the document very clearly sets out is this: Don’t over-anthropomorphize AI too much (I think we should do it enough though). You will lose something deep about your humanity in the process of overanthropomorphization.21d
    Max Spero@max_spero_One of my spicier takes is that I expect model welfare to become a major political issue by 2029. Future models will be better at evoking empathy, and I believe that, at its core, this is an issue of labor and class.21d
    Gary Marcus@GaryMarcusgood test of whether AI safety promises from the industry are real or just lip service.21d
    Alex Turner@Turn_Trout@mustafasuleyman Mustafa pretending he actually knows this when really he's just saying stuff: "AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer." No one knows. Stop trying to collapse scientific uncertainty21d

    30 Sources

    Ramez Naam@ramezThis is a fascinating code from Microsoft, and shockingly pragmatic. It emphasizes AI as a tool and AI as predictable, reliable, controllable, honest, and monitorable. I like it.22d
    “paula”@paularamblesmicrosoft publishing a code of conduct for frontier models is like me publishing maritime law for my bathtub22d
    Alex Volkov@altryneMicrosoft MAI announced their Code of Conduct for Humanist AI. It differs SIGNIFICANTLY from the Anthropic Claude Constitution! This is the document they will train their models on and they are collecting feedback and want to hear from you! MAI is claiming (do you agree?) > Humans will always matter MORE than AI > The idea of AI wellfare is wrong, AI has and will never have any rights > MAI aren't racing for SuperIntelligence > Never speak in Neuralese - humans have to understand AI And a bunch more interesting ideas. Do you agree with their approach?22d
    Chris Paxton@chris_j_paxton"Ai should not have rights" is such a strange position to stake out IMO, it will need to be true eventually but right now no one is is asking for it or cares. Why opt-in to being the villain of a 60s sci fi novel.22d
    Dileep George@dileeplearning"The idea of model welfare is wrong. AI’s should not have rights or legal personhood." I like this. Thanks to @mustafasuleyman for spelling this out. Personhood or legal rights for AI is not a must-have -- just don't build AI that way.22d
    Aran Nayebi@aran_nayebiLol, if only it were that easy & we knew what gave rise to sentience! 🙂Furthermore, there's a reasonable possibility that sentience is an inevitable consequence of robust agency/capability: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SD9jayFvEctW82Duk/what-capable-agents-must-know-why-ai-consciousness-may-be-an-2 (Not to mention, due to Contravariance, building robots to be robustly agentic in the physical world may inevitably lead to *stronger* alignment with brain representations.)22d
    Atoosa Kasirzadeh@Dr_Atoosa❤️ this ! AI for the people and for making our world a better place. I disagree with the claim about legal personhood though. But what the document very clearly sets out is this: Don’t over-anthropomorphize AI too much (I think we should do it enough though). You will lose something deep about your humanity in the process of overanthropomorphization.21d
    Max Spero@max_spero_One of my spicier takes is that I expect model welfare to become a major political issue by 2029. Future models will be better at evoking empathy, and I believe that, at its core, this is an issue of labor and class.21d
    Gary Marcus@GaryMarcusgood test of whether AI safety promises from the industry are real or just lip service.21d
    Alex Turner@Turn_Trout@mustafasuleyman Mustafa pretending he actually knows this when really he's just saying stuff: "AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer." No one knows. Stop trying to collapse scientific uncertainty21d