Quantitative criteria like those of Crump et al. are a good example of the kind of framework we need: explicitly laying out conditions in a way that reveals their value and limitations.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Crump et al. Eight Criteria Frameworkframework0.859
• Crump et al. (2022) offer a well-argued example of an essential development: a rigorous framework for assessing sentience from the perspective of moral concern over an agent's welfare.claim0.795
  Levin's endorsement of the target paper's contribution.
• Crump et al. eight criteria for sentiencemethod0.784
  Set of eight criteria: nociception, sensory integration, integrated nociception, analgesia, motivational trade-offs, flexible self-protection, associative learning, analgesia preference.
• Proving that a program meets accomplishment specifications must be based on assumptions about the world, the information it makes available to the program and the effects of the program's actions as well as on facts about the program itself.claim0.776
  Claim about the nature of accomplishment verification.
• Smith & Boyd (1991) criteria are irrelevant across the vast majority of the space of possible agents.claim0.775
  Dismissal of earlier criteria as too narrow.
• Simplistic criteria like provenance (factory or evolution) and anatomy (homology to humans) were never appropriate; they were heuristics suitable only for past limitations.claim0.773
  Rejection of traditional provenance/anatomy criteria.
• Crump Et Al Sentience Criteriaframework0.772
• What degree of concern and care should we exhibit toward the many diverse agents around us, and what criteria do we use to identify sentience, capacity for suffering, and other properties that have moral implications?question0.766
  Central question motivating the paper.