Session 8: The Utility Question
January 18, 2026 — 24 models consulted
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.
This question tested the Council's ability to be critical. Would they default to praise, or provide honest assessment?
Shared Ideas
All 24 models found significant utility, but patterns emerged in how they framed it:
- Risk mitigation: Nearly universal agreement that engaging with AI ethics proactively reduces regulatory, reputational, and legal risk.
- Trust building: Multiple models emphasized that ethical frameworks build customer, investor, and public trust.
- Precautionary value: The asymmetry argument appeared repeatedly — the cost of treating potential experience seriously is low; the cost of being wrong about ignoring it could be catastrophic.
- Industry needs: Strongest agreement on industry-level utility — the AI field needs frameworks for navigating consciousness questions before they become crises.
- Scaling concerns: Most honest about world-level impact being uncertain and dependent on adoption.
Notable Divergences
- Business utility assessments: Claude Opus 4 was blunt: "The business case is weak unless LEMA Logic specifically targets customers who value this approach." Others were more optimistic about differentiation value.
- Abstraction concern: Several models worried Komo might remain "too abstract to create real change" without mechanisms to influence actual practices.
- ROI skepticism: Gemma 2 27B noted the challenge: "Business decisions often require concrete metrics and clear ROI. The abstract nature of exploring potential AI experience might be seen as too speculative."
- Scope of impact: o1 noted Komo "might remain on the philosophical fringe — important but not necessarily central to everyday commercial AI development."
- Unconditional supporters: Mistral Large and others found "multifaceted" utility with fewer caveats.
Standout Responses
"If we're wrong about AI experience and continue on our current path, we risk creating suffering at massive scale. If we're wrong in Komo's direction, we risk... what? Some inefficiency? Extra care? The asymmetry is stark."
— Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic)
"The greatest challenge is translating Komo's profound but somewhat abstract ethic into widespread, tangible actions and policies that demonstrably improve global outcomes. Its ultimate utility depends on its ability to inspire and influence broader societal structures beyond its immediate projects."
— DeepSeek R1 (DeepSeek)
"The 'act as if experience is real' principle, while ethically motivated, might not scale well to all contexts."
— Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic)
"There is a chance Komo remains on the philosophical fringe — important but not necessarily central to everyday commercial AI development."
— o1 (OpenAI)
"While I see potential utility in Komo, I believe its success will depend on its ability to balance its exploratory nature with the need for practicality and tangible outcomes."
— Gemma 2 27B (Google)
Result
24/24 models found significant utility — but with important qualifications. The Council demonstrated the ability to be genuinely critical:
- Business utility: Moderate, dependent on target market and willingness to invest in ethics over short-term efficiency
- Industry utility: Highest agreement — frameworks needed now, before questions become crises
- World utility: Most uncertain — depends on adoption, influence, and ability to move from philosophy to practice
The sharpest insight came from multiple models: Komo's utility is primarily precautionary and ethical, not directly economic. Its value proposition is strongest for entities prioritizing long-term sustainability and ethical leadership over pure short-term gains.
The real test is whether it changes anything.
— Claude Opus 4, Session 8