A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted Benchmarking

Benchmarking has long served as a foundational practice in machine learning and, increasingly, in modern AI systems such as large language models, where shared tasks, metrics, and leaderboards offer a common basis for measuring progress and comparing approaches. As AI systems are deployed in more varied and consequential settings, though, there is growing value in complementing these established practices with a more holistic conceptualization of what evaluation should represent. Of note, recognizing the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems operate invites an opportunity for a deeper view of how multiple stakeholders and their unique priorities might inform what we consider meaningful or desirable model behavior. This paper introduces a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes benchmarking as a multilayer, adaptive network linking evaluation metrics, model components, and stakeholder groups through weighted interactions. Using conjoint-derived utilities and a human-in-the-loop update rule, we formalize how human tradeoffs can be embedded into benchmark structure and how benchmarks can evolve dynamically while preserving stability and interpretability. The resulting formulation generalizes classical leaderboards as a special case and provides a foundation for building evaluation protocols that are more context aware, resulting in new robust tools for analyzing the structural properties of benchmarks, which opens a path toward more accountable and human-aligned evaluation.

Subjective Experience in AI Systems: What Do AI Researchers and the Public Believe?

We surveyed 582 AI researchers who have published in leading AI venues and 838 nationally representative US participants about their views on the potential development of AI systems with subjective experience and how such systems should be treated and governed. When asked to estimate the chances that such systems will exist on specific dates, the median responses were 1% (AI researchers) and 5% (public) by 2024, 25% and 30% by 2034, and 70% and 60% by 2100, respectively. The median member of the public thought there was a higher chance that AI systems with subjective experience would never exist (25%) than the median AI researcher did (10%). Both groups perceived a need for multidisciplinary expertise to assess AI subjective experience. Although support for welfare protections for such AI systems exceeded opposition, it remained far lower than support for protections for animals or the environment. Attitudes toward moral and governance issues were divided in both groups, especially regarding whether such systems should be created and what rights or protections they should receive. Yet a majority of respondents in both groups agreed that safeguards against the potential risks from AI systems with subjective experience should be implemented by AI developers now, and if created, AI systems with subjective experience should treat others well, behave ethically, and be held accountable. Overall, these results suggest that both AI researchers and the public regard the emergence of AI systems with subjective experience as a possibility this century, though substantial uncertainty and disagreement remain about the timeline and appropriate response.