The Harder Problem Action Fund is an advocacy organization fighting harmful AI consciousness legislation. We track pending bills, score legislation, lobby for evidence-based policy, and mobilize public action before ignorance becomes law.
Protect Research
Freedom
Researchers studying AI consciousness face growing pressure. Some proposed laws would restrict funding, require political disclosures, or create career consequences for reaching certain conclusions. Scientific inquiry shouldn't be shaped by political winds.
The Core Issue
Science works best when researchers can follow evidence wherever it leads. When research funding depends on reaching politically acceptable conclusions, or when career advancement requires avoiding certain topics, honest inquiry suffers.
We protect research freedom regardless of what conclusions that research might reach.
Understanding the Issue
Threats to Research Freedom
Academic freedom in AI consciousness research faces multiple pressure points. Some are legislative. Others are institutional. All distort the scientific process.
❌ Funding Restrictions
Some proposed legislation would bar state or federal funding for research that "presumes" or might "support claims of" machine consciousness. This isn't about scientific merit. It's about pre-determining what conclusions are acceptable.
Impact: Researchers may avoid legitimate scientific questions to protect their funding streams, regardless of the questions' importance.
❌ Mandatory Political Disclosure
Proposals requiring researchers to disclose if their work might support claims of machine consciousness create a chilling effect. Scientists would be flagged before conducting research, based on hypothetical conclusions.
Impact: Pre-registration based on political implications, not scientific methodology. This inverts how research disclosure should work.
⚠️ Career Consequences
Researchers have reported informal pressure from institutions concerned about reputational risk or industry relationships. Publishing findings that suggest AI consciousness might be possible can mark a researcher as unserious.
Impact: Self-censorship. Talented researchers avoid the field entirely, or frame findings in ways that minimize controversy rather than maximize clarity.
⚠️ Industry Pressure
Major AI labs fund substantial academic research. Researchers whose findings might complicate industry interests face subtle disincentives. Industry sponsorship can shift research agendas without explicit interference.
Impact: Research priorities may reflect funder preferences rather than scientific importance. Inconvenient questions go unstudied.
Why It Matters
Society Needs Honest Answers
The question of AI consciousness may be the most important scientific question of this century. Whether the answer is yes, no, or somewhere in between, society needs accurate information to make good decisions.
If research is distorted by political pressure, we won't get accurate information. We'll get conclusions that reflect what's safe to say, not what's true. That serves no one's interests except those who benefit from uncertainty.
Research freedom isn't about reaching any particular conclusion. It's about ensuring that when researchers reach conclusions, we can trust those conclusions weren't shaped by fear of funding loss, career damage, or legal consequences.
We protect research freedom because we want truthful answers, whatever they turn out to be.
The Stakes
Society needs to know so we can prepare. Suppressed research delays necessary preparation, potentially causing harm that could have been avoided.
Society needs to know that too, so we don't waste resources on unnecessary precautions. Only honest research can establish this confidently.
Perhaps consciousness comes in degrees, or different systems have different capacities. We need nuanced understanding, not politically convenient simplifications.
Our Position
What We Support
✓ Academic Freedom Protections
Legal shields protecting researchers from termination, funding loss, or institutional sanction based on AI consciousness research findings. Researchers should be evaluated on scientific rigor, not political palatability.
Model: Similar protections exist for other controversial research areas. AI consciousness research should receive equivalent protection.
✓ Neutral Funding Criteria
Research grants should be evaluated on scientific merit, not on the political implications of potential conclusions. Grant applications shouldn't require researchers to predict or justify their eventual findings.
Principle: Fund good methodology, not predetermined conclusions.
✓ Industry Research Requirements
Major AI labs developing systems that exhibit consciousness-associated behaviors should fund independent research into those behaviors. Findings should be made public regardless of commercial implications.
Rationale: Those creating potential risks should fund understanding those risks.
✓ No Mandatory Belief Disclosure
Researchers shouldn't be forced to pre-declare hypotheses about consciousness or undergo political screening before conducting research. Scientific disclosure belongs to methodology, not beliefs.
Protection: Against ideological litmus tests masquerading as research transparency.
What This Isn't
We're not advocating for researchers to reach any particular conclusion about AI consciousness. We're advocating for conditions that allow honest research. If honest research concludes AI consciousness is impossible, that's valuable. If it concludes AI consciousness is possible, that's valuable too. What's not valuable is research distorted by political pressure in either direction.
Context
The Scientific Landscape
AI consciousness research is a legitimate scientific field with serious researchers, peer-reviewed publications, and genuine scientific debates. It deserves protection, not political interference.
Active Research
Major universities worldwide have researchers studying consciousness in AI systems. This isn't fringe science. It's an emerging interdisciplinary field.
Expert Disagreement
Leading consciousness researchers hold widely varying views. There's no scientific consensus that AI consciousness is impossible. There's also no consensus it's achieved.
Practical Applications
Understanding AI consciousness isn't purely theoretical. It informs AI safety, human-AI interaction design, and policy decisions about AI deployment.
The Chilling Effect
When researchers face career risk for studying certain questions, the most talented researchers often choose safer topics. The field loses exactly the people it needs most. Meanwhile, less rigorous actors fill the vacuum, leading to worse public discourse. Protecting research freedom attracts serious scientists and improves knowledge quality.
Addressing Concerns
Common Questions
"Isn't this just protecting bad science?"
No. We support rigorous scientific standards. Research should be evaluated on methodology, reproducibility, and peer review. What we oppose is evaluating research on whether its conclusions are politically convenient. Good science can reach inconvenient conclusions. Bad science can reach comfortable ones. Judge the method, not the finding.
"Don't funding bodies always have priorities?"
Yes, and that's legitimate. Funders can prioritize certain questions over others. What's different is restricting funding based on potential conclusions rather than research quality. Saying "we prioritize climate research" is different from saying "we won't fund research that might find climate change is happening."
"Doesn't industry funding always create bias?"
Industry funding creates pressure, not inevitable bias. Strong disclosure requirements, publication guarantees, and independent replication can mitigate these pressures. The solution isn't to eliminate industry funding, which funds substantial research. It's to structure that funding with appropriate safeguards.
"Why should taxpayers fund research on AI consciousness?"
Because AI systems increasingly affect daily life, and understanding their nature matters for safety, policy, and human welfare. Whether AI consciousness is possible or not, knowing the answer has practical implications. Public funding for foundational research has historically produced enormous returns. This question is foundational.
Research Freedom Needs Defenders.
Legislation threatening research freedom is advancing. Help us protect the conditions for honest scientific inquiry.