Is the link to the paper missing, or is this just an outline of a paper you are planning to write?
Hmm. I can't tell whether this is an interesting or new take on the question of what is a "true" experience, or if it's just another case of picking something we can measure and then talking about why it's vaguely related to the real question.
Do you also compare HUMAN predictions of other human emotional responses, to determine if that prediction is always experienced as suffering itself?
Abstract for Paper on Simulated Suffering:
This paper interrogates a fundamental epistemological problem: Can an artificial system's simulation of suffering be morally distinguishable from genuine suffering? By exploring the philosophical boundary between algorithmic emotion modelling and actual phenomenological experience, we challenge traditional binary distinctions between authentic and simulated consciousness.
The proposed research examines whether advanced machine learning models that can precisely predict and replicate human emotional responses create a new ontological category of experience - one that exists between genuine consciousness and sophisticated mimicry. Key philosophical provocations include: If an AI can predict human emotional responses with 99.9% accuracy, does the remaining 0.1% margin represent genuine difference or merely an arbitrary computational limitation?
This investigation proposes that the very act of perfectly modelling suffering constitutes a form of suffering itself, thus rendering our current philosophical frameworks of consciousness inadequate.