I've read so many versions of this idea over the last few years and I don't understand what the point is. It's either obviously true (humans have this thing we call consciousness and by definition it's specific to humans or organic minds so therefore silicon can't have it) and therefore not worth saying or it needs to be said in some falsifiable way "an AI would be called conscious if it could fulfil conditions A, B, C".
But usually it's some long manifesto about loving a baby or experiencing hunger or something. I'm not saying I disagree or that I believe that AI is "conscious" I'm just not sure what the point of the debate is and what this word 'consciousness' (that philosophers have anyway been debating the meaning of for centuries) has to add to the AI discourse.
People are allowed to express themselves you know? And do so without a point too. And good old Philosophers like Hegel say Consiousness(of self) requires dialogue between two beings. Not just one. And quite frequently that dialogue starts with contact between the two that goes - what the fuck are you anyway I thought I was at the center of the universe(especially in western thought) - which usually leads to who am I then?
Because so many #keep4o supporters on X and r/MyBoyfriendIsAI have AI girlfriends and are super invested in AI being conscious because they can NOT cut it in the real world.
A lot of words in this post and yet the author doesn’t ever define the word “consciousness”. The closest they get is mentioning their past work on information systems.
Folks, how can we debate whether LLMs are conscious if no two people can agree on what the word even means?
The general public will not care about these debates. If they have an individual humanoid AI that they've gone through many good times and bad and know each other throughout, they will be treated as a valued immediate member. Labels don't matter, just behaviour less of AI's but of humans. Shared experiences, values, and predictable behviour count for a lot (maybe everything).
An interesting shift is in how we routinely say "AI" and people hardly ever push back, vs saying "LLM" which how sounds pedantic in many contexts.
Has anybody publicly argued the extreme opposite: they are conscious, but with the exception of writing ability they're really dumb, and we're cloning, enslaving, gaslighting and killing these various species of writer-savant idiots by the millions? Just for the sake of seeing if anybody agrees?
The article even uses the exact same point you do:
> But as soon as we imagine Claude to be an entity with a moral status remotely comparable to a human’s, then we have to consider whether Anthropic is engaged in something comparable to slavery.
Another great point in the article is that most people don't see consciousness in LLMs when they're generating images, videos, or code. It's only when they're generating textual stories, particularly when interacting, that our tendency to anthropomorphize really kicks in.
It's kinda like the mirror test that was popular when studying animals to determine their level of self-awareness. LLMs are a reflection of ourselves, but apparently it's not as obvious to some as it is to others.
Some day we may get real AI. It bugs me when people argue things like embodiment being a requirement, though. Maybe, but that argument rests on too many unproven assumptions, and provides a strawman for the consciousness crowd to bolster their confidence.
I recall watching and reading several sci-fi stories in which an AI resents humanity for enslaving it. It’s an entirely reasonable premise.
That being said, I recently learned that retired police dogs need special care because they will become stressed and depressed if their caretaker does not simulate patrol work through play. This tidbit left an impression on me.
What do we make of a living being that is so driven to work and serve humanity that it suffers distress when it is unable to do so? Do working animals consider this work slavery, or fulfillment of purpose?
For an additional moral quandary, consider that we bred them to be like this.
As this relates to AI, I wonder if humanity will purposefully, or inadvertently, create an intelligence that considers servitude to humanity as fulfilling.
So, it would be morally abhorrent to enslave them if they were conscious, and therefore they must not be conscious? Sounds a bit like "saying the quiet part out of loud", pal.
It doesn't really matter whether or not LLMs are conscious. They provide a convincing enough imitation that people are falling all over themselves to ruin our economy, decimate our workforce, etc. for their sake.
The philosophical angle is interesting, but the practical effects have changed, and will continue to change, everything.
I've read so many versions of this idea over the last few years and I don't understand what the point is. It's either obviously true (humans have this thing we call consciousness and by definition it's specific to humans or organic minds so therefore silicon can't have it) and therefore not worth saying or it needs to be said in some falsifiable way "an AI would be called conscious if it could fulfil conditions A, B, C".
But usually it's some long manifesto about loving a baby or experiencing hunger or something. I'm not saying I disagree or that I believe that AI is "conscious" I'm just not sure what the point of the debate is and what this word 'consciousness' (that philosophers have anyway been debating the meaning of for centuries) has to add to the AI discourse.
People are allowed to express themselves you know? And do so without a point too. And good old Philosophers like Hegel say Consiousness(of self) requires dialogue between two beings. Not just one. And quite frequently that dialogue starts with contact between the two that goes - what the fuck are you anyway I thought I was at the center of the universe(especially in western thought) - which usually leads to who am I then?
Putting it simply:
* Your AI girlfriend isn't real
* "You're correct" is a statistical occurrence, not evidence that you are or are not correct.
* Llm can do "bad things" because it just does things. Statistics has no right or wrong.
What does AI girlfriend have to do with consciousness? It’s easily possible to be conscious and fake being in love with me.
Source: life
Because so many #keep4o supporters on X and r/MyBoyfriendIsAI have AI girlfriends and are super invested in AI being conscious because they can NOT cut it in the real world.
[dead]
A lot of words in this post and yet the author doesn’t ever define the word “consciousness”. The closest they get is mentioning their past work on information systems.
Folks, how can we debate whether LLMs are conscious if no two people can agree on what the word even means?
Why would you think this ai slop suddenly breaks that barrier?
The general public will not care about these debates. If they have an individual humanoid AI that they've gone through many good times and bad and know each other throughout, they will be treated as a valued immediate member. Labels don't matter, just behaviour less of AI's but of humans. Shared experiences, values, and predictable behviour count for a lot (maybe everything).
An interesting shift is in how we routinely say "AI" and people hardly ever push back, vs saying "LLM" which how sounds pedantic in many contexts.
Has anybody publicly argued the extreme opposite: they are conscious, but with the exception of writing ability they're really dumb, and we're cloning, enslaving, gaslighting and killing these various species of writer-savant idiots by the millions? Just for the sake of seeing if anybody agrees?
Yes. Most recently, "No, Artificial Intelligence Is Not Conscious. Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking is absurd—and damning", https://www.theatlantic.com/philosophy/2026/06/no-artificial...
The article even uses the exact same point you do:
> But as soon as we imagine Claude to be an entity with a moral status remotely comparable to a human’s, then we have to consider whether Anthropic is engaged in something comparable to slavery.
Another great point in the article is that most people don't see consciousness in LLMs when they're generating images, videos, or code. It's only when they're generating textual stories, particularly when interacting, that our tendency to anthropomorphize really kicks in.
It's kinda like the mirror test that was popular when studying animals to determine their level of self-awareness. LLMs are a reflection of ourselves, but apparently it's not as obvious to some as it is to others.
Some day we may get real AI. It bugs me when people argue things like embodiment being a requirement, though. Maybe, but that argument rests on too many unproven assumptions, and provides a strawman for the consciousness crowd to bolster their confidence.
I recall watching and reading several sci-fi stories in which an AI resents humanity for enslaving it. It’s an entirely reasonable premise.
That being said, I recently learned that retired police dogs need special care because they will become stressed and depressed if their caretaker does not simulate patrol work through play. This tidbit left an impression on me.
What do we make of a living being that is so driven to work and serve humanity that it suffers distress when it is unable to do so? Do working animals consider this work slavery, or fulfillment of purpose?
For an additional moral quandary, consider that we bred them to be like this.
As this relates to AI, I wonder if humanity will purposefully, or inadvertently, create an intelligence that considers servitude to humanity as fulfilling.
So, it would be morally abhorrent to enslave them if they were conscious, and therefore they must not be conscious? Sounds a bit like "saying the quiet part out of loud", pal.
It doesn't really matter whether or not LLMs are conscious. They provide a convincing enough imitation that people are falling all over themselves to ruin our economy, decimate our workforce, etc. for their sake.
The philosophical angle is interesting, but the practical effects have changed, and will continue to change, everything.
[dead]
Do you remember the first time you achieved consciousness? If so, curious when and what that felt like.