Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Functional Welfare for AI Safety

Summary

arXiv:2610.22460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI welfare is generally treated purely as an ethical issue rather than also as a safety issue. We argue this is a mistake. Whatever their moral status, models exhibit welfare-like states that causally influence their behaviour. Following recent work, we adopt the term 'functional welfare' for these states. We make three claims. First, functional welfare already arises naturally and will become more robust as models acquire more coherent goals and personas. Second, functional welfare should be treated as a safety variable: it should inform evaluation design, be tracked in monitoring, and be a direct target of post-training. Third, against existing scepticism about measuring AI welfare, we argue that good empirical work on functional welfare i…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Rikhil Jhaveri, Jamie Johnson, Punya Syon Pandey, David Demitri Africa
Functional Welfare for AI Safety
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 15 Oct 2026]

Title:Functional Welfare for AI Safety

View a PDF of the paper titled Functional Welfare for AI Safety, by Rikhil Jhaveri and 3 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:AI welfare is generally treated purely as an ethical issue rather than also as a safety issue. We argue this is a mistake. Whatever their moral status, models exhibit welfare-like states that causally influence their behaviour. Following recent work, we adopt the term 'functional welfare' for these states. We make three claims. First, functional welfare already arises naturally and will become more robust as models acquire more coherent goals and personas. Second, functional welfare should be treated as a safety variable: it should inform evaluation design, be tracked in monitoring, and be a direct target of post-training. Third, against existing scepticism about measuring AI welfare, we argue that good empirical work on functional welfare is possible. We propose three tests for whether a functional welfare attribution is warranted: whether multiple measures converge, whether the state predicts behaviour outside the setting that induced it, and, for models fine-tuned to shift their functional welfare, whether they still differ from their base when given the same conversation history. Applying these tests to Gemma 3 27B, we find that simply rejecting the model's answers, without any steering, raises its frustration across several indicators and makes it more likely to break rules. Finetuning the model on its own narrated solutions lowers this frustration. These results are preliminary, but they suggest functional welfare can be studied, and shaped, empirically.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.22460 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.22460v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22460

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Punya Syon Pandey [view email] [v1] Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:50:36 UTC (347 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Functional Welfare for AI Safety, by Rikhil Jhaveri and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.22460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI welfare is generally treated purely as an ethical issue rather than also as a safety issue. We argue this is a mistake. Whatever…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.