The debate about AI consciousness is growing, in academic articles, newspaper opinion pieces, and even among AI bots themselves. I doubt this is a passing wave of interest.
As AI systems become more capable and human-like, and more involved in our lives, the question will become harder to avoid. Many people may come to regard AI bots as conscious beings whose feelings matter. Others will strongly disagree.
I think this debate could split societies. In my chapter of the new book Perspectives on Machine Consciousness, I argue that the issue could become as divisive as abortion or climate change. Uncertainty, high stakes and competing interests are a dangerous combination.
Empirical research with my colleague Ali Ladak, currently under review, shows people are divided on this issue. When we asked 1,202 US participants whether future AI could ever become conscious, 45 per cent considered it impossible while 23 per cent thought it possible,
with the rest unsure.
This widespread disagreement is also visible in social media posts and comments on articles. What strikes me is how confident so many people sound – whichever conclusion they are reaching.
It is not surprising people have such strong views. Creating conscious beings through computing would be a transformative event.
We would be creating a new kind of being whose experiences matter morally – potentially in enormous numbers. We could speak and work with them, and form friendships. But these beings may eventually become more intelligent and
powerful than us.
We should therefore expect people to care deeply, especially when so many emotions and incentives are involved. Some people may form close emotional bonds with their AI companions and become convinced these are digital people who deserve rights. They might see it as slavery to force AI to work without pay.
Others would find this absurd. They may be convinced that consciousness requires biology, and that people are reading human feelings into machines.
There could also be financial reasons for businesses and governments to resist recognising AI consciousness. Protecting AI welfare could limit how these organisations train and use their systems – and the costs would spread to consumers, investors and the wider economy.
Others may worry about human safety. If we give powerful AI systems rights and freedom, what happens if they act against our interests?
Figuring out whether an AI is conscious is particularly difficult because seeming conscious and being conscious can come apart. AI systems learn from human writing, which means they can talk convincingly about feelings whether or not they have any. How an AI comes across is weak evidence of what is going on inside.
Ideally, experts should guide this debate. But unfortunately,
they disagree too.
Neuroscientist Anil Seth argues that consciousness might require biology and is unlikely to emerge from computation. Philosopher David Chalmers, by contrast, believes conscious AI is possible in principle – and thinks there’s a small chance that current systems already are.
With so many competing theories and no agreed way to resolve the question, I doubt experts will reach agreement any time soon. And if experts disagree, what is the public supposed to believe?
Furthermore, even if we all agreed on the consciousness question, we could still disagree about the moral and legal questions. People generally agree that pigs can feel pain, but still disagree strongly about their treatment. With AI, we could face disputes at every stage: whether it can feel, how much its experiences matter, and what protections
should follow.
AI consciousness is not yet tied to a specific political or ideological group. But this could change if political parties or religious leaders start to take strong positions.
The debate could get even worse if people start to see one answer as belonging to ‘our side’ and the other to ‘their side’. A politicised debate would make it very hard to make informed decisions about how to develop and treat AI systems.
The stakes are high. Getting this question wrong, in either direction, could have serious consequences: either wrongly treating AI as conscious when it is not, or failing to protect AI that
can suffer.
Getting it right requires a nuanced and well-informed debate. Each of us can contribute by staying open-minded and open to evidence, while resisting being too sure that we know the answers. Above all, we still don’t know whether AI can be conscious, and we should be honest about that.
The Conversation
(Lucius Caviola is Assistant Professor in the Social Science of AI, Institute for Technology and Humanity, University of Cambridge)
