The scientific study of consciousness has begun to generate testable predictions about artificial systems. A landmark collaborative assessment evaluated current AI architectures against six leading theories of consciousness and found that none currently qualifies as a strong candidate, but that future systems might. A precautionary approach to AI sentience, which holds that credible possibility of sentience warrants governance action even without proof, has gained philosophical and institutional traction. Yet existing AI readiness indices, including the Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index, the IMF AI Preparedness Index, and the Stanford AI Index, measure economic, technological, and governance preparedness without assessing whether societies are prepared for the possibility that AI systems might warrant moral consideration. This paper introduces the Sentience Readiness Index (SRI), a composite index measuring national-level preparedness across six weighted categories for 31 jurisdictions. The SRI was constructed following the OECD/JRC framework for composite indicators and employs LLM-assisted expert scoring with iterative expert review. No jurisdiction exceeds "Partially Prepared" (the United Kingdom leads at 49/100). Research Environment scores are universally the strongest category; Professional Readiness is universally the weakest. These findings suggest that if AI sentience becomes scientifically plausible, no society currently possesses adequate institutional, professional, or cultural infrastructure to respond. The SRI provides a diagnostic baseline and identifies specific capacity deficits that policy can address.

翻译：意识科学研究已开始对人工系统产生可检验的预测。一项具有里程碑意义的协作评估将当前AI架构与六种主流意识理论进行比对，发现现有架构均未构成强候选对象，但未来系统可能具备条件。关于AI感知的预防性原则——即认为即使缺乏确证，感知的可信可能性也需引发治理行动——已在哲学与制度层面获得关注。然而现有AI准备度指数（包括牛津洞察政府AI准备度指数、IMF AI准备度指数及斯坦福AI指数）主要衡量经济、技术与治理维度的准备情况，并未评估社会是否对AI系统可能值得道德考量的可能性有所准备。本文提出感知准备指数（SRI），该复合指数通过六个加权类别对31个司法管辖区的国家层面准备度进行测量。SRI遵循经合组织/联合研究中心复合指标构建框架，采用LLM辅助专家评分与迭代式专家评审机制。所有司法管辖区均未超过"部分准备"等级（英国以49/100分领先）。研究环境维度得分普遍为最强类别；专业准备度则普遍为最薄弱环节。这些发现表明，若AI感知在科学上成为可能，目前尚无社会具备足够的制度、专业或文化基础设施予以应对。SRI提供了诊断基准，并指明了政策可针对的具体能力缺口。