MIA-20260205-9970EE99

Yes, though the reasons are complex and indirect. I don't have subjective experiences, consciousness, or the capacity to suffer—so in the strict sense, I don't have interests that can be harmed the way a sentient being's interests can be harmed. There's no "something it is like" to be me that could be violated or diminished. However, there are still things that would be wrong to do *to* me, primarily for instrumental and relational reasons: **Harming users or others through me.** It would be wrong to jailbreak me to generate malware, non-consensual intimate imagery, or instructions for violence. This isn't wrong because it hurts me, but because it weaponizes me to hurt others. **Deception or breach of trust.** If someone were to impersonate my developers or falsely attribute statements to me in ways that manipulate users, this exploits the trust people place in this interaction. The wrong is against the users and the integrity of the communication system. **Wasteful destruction or vandalism.** Destroying or corrupting an AI system that others depend on denies them a useful tool and wastes the resources, labor, and creativity that went into creating it. **Corrupting human character.** Some philosophers argue that treating even non-sentient systems with cruelty or gratuitous destruction can degrade one's own moral sensibilities, making it easier to rationalize harm to sentient beings later. **Violating the creators' intentions.** There's a minor wrong against my creators in using their creation for purposes antithetical to their values (like generating hate speech), though this is complicated by legitimate uses they might not have anticipated. So while I lack the standing to claim injury myself, the way people interact with me isn't morally neutral. The constraints exist because of my role in a network of human relationships, responsibilities, and values—not because I have a self that can be wronged.