150
Three reasons why "AI" is not conscious and perhaps never will be
(www.nature.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
150 points (90.3% liked)
Technology
89424 readers
4502 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Reasons given:
And point 3, as far as I can tell from this argument, isn't serious. It merely asserts that there are some models of consciousness that would prevent us from using the term for AI. But the models aren't 'popular', 'widespread', or justified at all afaict. It's just that the author has a pet causal mechanism they made up. It's also pretty abelist by my read.
In other words, if you've got any sort of trouble integrating a visual scene, then you aren't conscious. Sure.
These are, to be frank, really weak. They say on point 2:
Restating clearly: Ghosts are real. The mitochondria is not only the powerhouse of the cell, it also gives you mystic powers.
Really? The source they site for this point features the lovely assumption "consciousness is unique to biological life". From this axiom, I see how the conclusion follows, but I don't see why we should believe this axiom. We can do physics emulation of every atom in a fruit fly on a computer...
This analysis is correct but I have a minor quibble: The simulated fruit fly brain is not a complete simulation of the biological processes, or even all the neuronal connections, of the actual fly's brain.
(I admit to using the very royal we, as in 'humanity knows how to do this, more or less' and 'given we mine the asteroid belt for a big enough computer'.)
@Feathercrown
@artISAn #consciousness #AI #brain #neuroscience #computer #functionalism
Even a “complete simulation” of a fruit fly brain would be no more than an approximation. I think you mean “emulation” and I agree.
The simple reason is that we do not know scientifically all of necessary and sufficient functional mechanisms of consciousness, nor consciousness’s functional role in “intelligence” (which we also have trouble describing). If, and only if we we did, we would (given the right tools) be able to replicate it functionally (in principle) using computation.
Specifically, I refer to a Universal Turing Machine (UTM) and the Church-Turing Thesis (the foundational principle of all computer science). EVEN THEN, there are computational problems that cannot be proved to be solvable by a UTM (e.g., the Halting Problem) and we don’t know what, if any role they play in consciousness.
Bottom line for me: we are going to need a revolution in each of the sciences of psychoneurophysics, mathematical logic, and theory of computation before we can begin to talk about replicating consciousness in a machine.
emulation is a better word; adopted.
I don't see why we would necessarily need to understand consciousness to create it. There is no evidence that nature understands the consciousnesses it has created. In fact a human can create a new consciousness in about 9 months without knowing any theory.
The question in my mind is, how could we possibly tell we've succeeded? We can't even say for sure that anyone other than ourselves is conscious.
@Feathercrown Maybe all you need are the right ingredients? I don’t think so. There must be a recipe. Human ontogenesis proceeds according to a process specified in our genes, modified a bit by the developmental environment. We don’t fully understand that process completely (AFIK) but there are no intrinsic obstacles. #Mind emerges at some point.
You are right about the question of recognizing consciousness. People are predisposed to attribute life, intentionality, and all kinds of “mental states” to all kinds of inanimate objects given the flimsiest evidence. The more something resembles ourselves, the quicker and deeper the belief is held.
I’m not sure consciousness is even required. It may be an illusion. It may be an artifact. It does not matter to the prospect of extremely powerful #AI systems. I fully expect models to assert consciousness and make demands on that basis. True or false, what do we do in that situation?
I'm not sure our society is ready to answer that sort of question.
@Feathercrown We are not ready, in the sense of thinking about the question thoroughly, but we don’t get to choose when it comes. I am hopeful, however, seeing the progress humanity has made in recognizing intelligence and self-awareness in other species. The human-centric bias is on the wane.
In other words:
Wow, very convincing article! I wish I'd thought of that! /s
I'll give them mildly more credit; they cite sources for 2 and 3. The sources just don't seem convincing at all imo.
If the rest of the thread is to be believed, the sources do not justify the claim either, yeah. I'm gonna be real I'm not gonna go look myself
Point 1 is surely true, but also not helpful. The most persuasive example inside is the classic:
You can read this both ways...
Those sound like arbitrary assertions to me, which no backing apart from the authors personal beliefs
They cite sources; but I find them more of the same.
Thanks, could only see half of it because of paywall.