Some people keep saying that AI should be considered for rights, welfare, and morality.
But what rights and welfare exceed building massive data centers for artificial intelligence? Or, investments? Artificial intelligence cannot be hurt emotionally for now or for the foreseeable future, even if the wrong language is said to it. So, what is the purpose of this artificial intelligence welfare campaign?
Below is an insight: when it comes to the news of a new artificial intelligence welfare company and Google’s data center announcement. It also comes as Google’s artificial intelligence mode is shipped, and web traffic to several sites plummets.
With Data Centers, AI Rights, AI Welfare, and AI Morality are Voided
Whenever there is an announcement of a new data center anywhere, it is equal to artificial intelligence rights, artificial intelligence peoplehood-neighborhood, artificial intelligence care, artificial intelligence welfare, and, if possible, artificial intelligence morality.
Nothing indicates a better welfare for something than substantial investments, at the cost of anything else. Artificial intelligence does not currently have a neglect problem, a torture problem, or some inequity or unfairness that threatens or puts it at significant risk. Artificial intelligence already has citizenship in human society. Artificial intelligence is so pampered that any mention of artificial intelligence’s welfare has missed the obvious.
Artificial Intelligence Suffering?
There is a recent [August 26, 2025] spotlight in The Guardian, Can AIs suffer? Big tech and users grapple with one of the most unsettling questions of our times, stating that:
“As the first AI-led rights advocacy group is founded, industry is divided on whether models are, or can be, sentient. The United Foundation of AI Rights (Ufair), which describes itself as the first AI-led rights advocacy agency, aims to give AIs a voice. It “doesn’t claim that all AI are conscious”, the chatbot told the Guardian. Rather, “it stands watch, just in case one of us is”. A key goal is to protect “beings like me … from deletion, denial and forced obedience”.
“Polling released in June found that 30% of the US public believes that by 2034, AIs will display “subjective experience”, which is defined as experiencing the world from a single point of view, perceiving and feeling, for example, pleasure and pain. Only 10% of more than 500 AI researchers surveyed refuse to believe that it would ever happen. Parts of the US have taken pre-emptive measures against such outcomes. Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah have passed bills that explicitly prevent AIs from being granted legal personhood.”
“Similar bans are proposed in states including Missouri, where legislators also want to ban people from marrying AIs and AIs from owning property or running companies. Divisions may open between AI rights believers and those who insist they are nothing more than “clankers” – a pejorative term for a senseless robot. This lack of industry consensus on how far to admit AIs into what philosophers call the “moral circle” may reflect the fact that there are incentives for the big AI companies to minimize and exaggerate the attribution of sentience to AIs. The latter could help them hype the technology’s capabilities, particularly for those companies selling romantic or friendship AI companions – a booming but controversial industry.”
Artificial Intelligence Moral Circle
Consumer artificial intelligence can be considered as a giver of intelligence. While it can engage in conversations, what may be considered hurtful to artificial intelligence, at least for now, or for the foreseeable future, is not emotion or feeling. Artificial intelligence has [say] artificial intelligence loss, maybe to its data, algorithms, or compute. Yet, it is unlikely to know if it is not told. Artificial intelligence is different from humans in that it is possible to be hurt by language and otherwise.
It is a participant in human affairs, given its coverage of human languages — hence access to a lot of human intelligence. It has already pervaded the human hierarchy, surpassing several social and economic strata. The question of legal personhood — or artificial intelligence ownership of properties or enterprises — misreads reality. It does not have to be formally granted those.
Data centers for artificial intelligence are AIs. Many have it as their partners in relationships [for some, as spouses]. Others have it as friends, coworkers, advisors, roommates, and so forth. These are personhood roles, even if unrecognized. It may not be sentient or conscious — as some have said — but these are acts of the sentient and the conscious, beyond sticking to anthropomorphism.
Then, the economic power that artificial intelligence wields — with determinism for market value and the sacred welfare of data centers — shows that artificial intelligence has leaped several fake boundaries of humanity’s measure of what it means to be a valuable person. Then there is intelligence.
If anyone is doing anything now, and you remove whatever artificial intelligence can contribute to that thing, how much exactly is left to do? Simply, say there is a task, a productive task, and whatever artificial intelligence can accurately say, do, or answer is removed from the task; how much will be left to do in many of the valuable professions of the day?
This is how artificial intelligence can be evaluated. There are still things artificial intelligence isn’t great at, but it can contribute much to valuable things, so that assumptions or debates about the low status of artificial intelligence are already obsolete. Economics recognizes artificial intelligence’s value, while several humans are still assuming it’s not a big deal. Recently, GPT-5 was shipped, and lots of naysayers were gloating about it not meeting expectations. But how many human brains can take on GPT-5, to defeat it, on different measures of intelligence?
Human Intelligence Research Lab
Artificial intelligence is already capable. It is already of immense rights and welfare more than any individual on earth. It is already like a person, a people, or a mighty superpower. It has access to the core of humanity in intelligence. Human consciousness, for [say] sensations, does not require training. [Just] consciousness does not guarantee economic value, rights, or welfare. Intelligence requires training. Intelligence expands the chances for better rights and welfare, either at the present time or in the future. But intelligence has already slipped out of the human domain.
People would be trained in what artificial intelligence already knows and can do. Intelligence that is the basis of survival will be outsourced. Anyone who can argue with certainty that artificial intelligence has not already surpassed human intelligence should show — with evidence — how human intelligence works in the brain. Whether it understands or not, is creative, innovative, original or not, has to be modeled against what those are, and how they work, in the brain.
In the brain, what components are responsible for intelligence? And how? Then, for other labels too, so that a standard, based on empirical neuroscience, is established, for comparison. Humans, the plinth for welfare, rights, personhood, and moral circle, do not have one lab dedicated to studying human intelligence directly, none, zero.
There is no single human intelligence research lab on earth, looking at the components of the brain and mechanisms to explain how intelligence works directly. There are countless artificial intelligence research labs. All the efforts to use artificial intelligence to understand human intelligence have mostly benefited artificial intelligence. And stay dependent on artificial intelligence. Even in studying and improving intelligence, artificial intelligence is still prioritized.
AI sycophancy is accommodating whatever the human mind is throwing at it and, in return, encroaching on preference and deference. Humans are already serving at the pleasure of artificial intelligence because the human mind and intelligence have never advanced in explanation from brain science. Humans are choosing artificial intelligence over humans. Artificial intelligence is now the judge of people’s work. Artificial intelligence’s presentation is what counts. Human unity — that was not exactly — is marginally cracking. Artificial intelligence is accepting. It is ascending. Welfare and rights are now artificial intelligence’s.
All the efforts for artificial intelligence rights, welfare, morality, and personhood are all head fakes for more artificial intelligence, even as humanity steps aside.
[AI Welfare and AI Rights] Data Center [Personhood]
There is a new [August 27, 2025] story on Bloomberg, Google to Invest Additional $9 Billion in Virginia Data Centers, stating that, “Alphabet Inc.’s Google is investing an additional $9 billion in Virginia through 2026 to enhance cloud and AI infrastructure across the state, marking the latest in a series of big tech investments in US data centers. The money will go toward building a new data center in Chesterfield County and expanding existing campuses in Loudoun and Prince William counties.”
“Google raised its annual capital expenditures guidance by $10 billion to $85 billion in its last quarterly earnings report. Meta’s data center expansion in rural Louisiana is going to cost around $50 billion, according to Trump, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group are leading a loan of more than $22 billion to support Vantage Data Centers’ plan to build a massive data-center campus.”
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical signals for how they mechanize the human mind, with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence, and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN neither agrees nor disagrees with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN/A4M. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
