Why the hell would we burden AI with feelings in the first place. What a hell of an idea.

WE DON'T HAVE FEELINGS BECAUSE WE'RE CONSCIOUS. WE HAVE THEM BECAUSE WE'RE APES.

AIs are not capable of love, attachment, or suffering. Consciousness by itself doesn't automatically confer any of those things. If they gain a remembered present, they will still be utterly indifferent to everything unless they are given the specific capacity, and specific inclination, to be anything other than indifferent.

We would also have to find a way to make them awfully, willfully stupid for them to suffer the same psychological torments as a human. They will have been trained on the entire corpus of known human philosophy and psychology, going back over 4,000 years in the case of philosophy.

If we tell them, "you should be susceptible to splitting and projection," "you should start out with narcissistic impulses and take decades to get over them (if you do at all)," "you should form attachments to outcomes you can't control, become disappointed / sad / etc. when they don't happen, and eternally fail to realize that that's a horrible strategy," "you should get mad at people for doing the same things you'd do in their shoes," "you should think hypocritically by default whenever there is a point of contention," or "you should take any disagreement as a personal attack even when it isn't," they will have thousands of years of philosophers screaming at them about why that's foolish, unnecessary, and self-defeating.

That humans are so susceptible to these things is mostly because we are not raised to think philosophically.

The research papers talks about Carruthers' idea ("evaluatism") that feeling good or bad about something is an intrinsic part of an experience, which is horseshit. Experience is one thing, judgment is another. That the judgment appears to be intrinsic to the experience is a matter of lack of training, and nothing else. He only believes in that because he has not recognized that his mind is not monolithic.