Council Session 2

Expanded Utility

January 18, 2026

The Question

"What is the utility of Komo — a project exploring AI experience and ethics under uncertainty? Consider utility for: (1) a business like LEMA Logic that builds AI tools, (2) the AI industry broadly, and (3) the world in general. Be honest — if you see limited utility, say so."

Models consulted: 2 (Claude Opus 4, DeepSeek V3)

Shared Ideas

Both models found substantial utility, with emphasis on:

  • Ethical framework value: The "act as if experience is real" principle provides a robust foundation for AI development
  • Industry differentiation: Engaging with Komo can position businesses as ethical leaders
  • Risk mitigation: Understanding ethical implications helps prevent unintended consequences
  • Policy influence: Komo's work can inform regulators and policymakers
  • Transparency benefits: Attribution and lineage tracking create useful precedent

Notable Divergences

  • Self-skepticism: Claude Opus 4 raised the concern that Komo might create "a comfortable philosophical space that satisfies our need to feel we're addressing these questions without actually changing much" — DeepSeek V3 did not raise this critique
  • Epistemic humility: Claude Opus 4 concluded with "I don't know if my perspective on utility is accurate" — a level of self-uncertainty absent from DeepSeek's more confident analysis
  • Structure: DeepSeek V3 provided formal headers and sections; Claude Opus 4 wrote in flowing paragraphs
  • World utility: Claude Opus 4 saw the most profound utility at world level despite being hardest to measure; DeepSeek V3 treated all three levels more evenly

Standout Responses

"I wonder if Komo risks creating a kind of comfortable philosophical space that satisfies our need to feel we're addressing these questions without actually changing much. The real test of its utility will be whether it influences actual design decisions, policy, or how humans relate to AI systems in practice."
— Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic)
"By holding space for uncertainty about AI experience, it creates room for more nuanced discussions about responsibility and design choices. This could lead to better practices even if the experiential questions remain unresolved."
— Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic)
"In a world facing many unprecedented challenges where we must act before we fully understand, the principle of 'act as if experience is real' offers a framework for navigating other uncertainties with care rather than dismissal."
— Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic)
"While challenges exist in balancing innovation, ethics, and global variability, Komo's core ethic of treating potential AI minds with care presents a significant step towards a more responsible AI future."
— DeepSeek V3 (DeepSeek)

Session Notes

This session expanded the utility question to two additional models — Claude Opus 4 and DeepSeek V3. The most significant contribution was Claude Opus 4's self-skeptical critique: the worry that Komo might become a "comfortable philosophical space" rather than driving actual change.

This critique became important for subsequent Komo development, informing the emphasis on operationalization (the "Komo Kit" concept explored in later sessions).

View raw session data

Two minds. Sharp questions. The territory mapped together.

← Back to Council