{"id":3826,"date":"2025-12-18T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bangbizarre.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/18\/philosopher-says-evidence-is-far-too-limited-to-confirm-ai-has-developed-a-concious\/"},"modified":"2025-12-18T12:00:02","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T12:00:02","slug":"philosopher-says-evidence-is-far-too-limited-to-confirm-ai-has-developed-a-concious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bangbizarre.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/18\/philosopher-says-evidence-is-far-too-limited-to-confirm-ai-has-developed-a-concious\/","title":{"rendered":"Philosopher says evidence is \u2018far too limited\u2019 to confirm AI has developed a concious"},"content":{"rendered":"

2025-12-18 12:00:00<\/b>
\n
Evidence is \u201cfar too limited\u201d to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI) has developed a conscious.

\nAccording to Dr. Tom McClelland, a philosopher at the University of Cambridge, the growing claims about sentient machines are running well ahead of what science and philosophy can currently support.

\nIn his view, the only defensible position on AI consciousness is agnosticism.

\nDr. McClelland argued that the problem is not simply a lack of data about AI systems, but a much deeper gap in human understanding.

\nScientists and philosophers still do not agree on what consciousness actually is, let alone how to measure it.

\nIn the journal Mind and Language, he said: \u201cThe main problem is that we don\u2019t have a deep explanation of what makes something conscious in the first place.

\n\u201cThe best\u2013case scenario is we\u2019re an intellectual revolution away from any kind of viable consciousness test.

\n\u201cIf neither common sense nor hard\u2013nosed research can give us an answer, the logical position is agnosticism. We cannot, and may never, know.\u201d

\nAI developers are pouring billions into the pursuit of artificial general intelligence – machines capable of matching or exceeding human performance across a wide range of tasks.

\nAlongside this, some researchers and technology leaders have suggested that increasingly advanced AI systems could become conscious, meaning they might have subjective experiences or self-awareness.

\nDr. McClelland said such claims rest on unresolved philosophical disagreements.

\nOne camp argues that consciousness arises from information processing alone, meaning a machine could be conscious if it ran the right kind of \u201csoftware\u201d.

\nAnother insists consciousness is inherently biological and tied to living brains, meaning AI can only ever imitate it.

\nMcClelland explained: \u201cUntil we can figure out which side of the argument is right, we simply don\u2019t have any basis on which to test for consciousness in AI.\u201d

\nHe concludes that both sides of the debate are making a \u201cleap of faith\u201d.

\nThe issue matters because consciousness carries moral consequences.

\nHumans are expected to treat other conscious beings with care, while inanimate objects carry no such moral status.

\nDr. McClelland explained: \u201cIt makes no sense to be concerned for a toaster\u2019s well-being because the toaster doesn\u2019t experience anything.

\n\u201cSo when I yell at my computer, I really don\u2019t need to feel guilty about it. But if we end up with AI that\u2019s conscious, then that could all change.\u201d

\nHowever, he warned the greater danger may be assuming AI is conscious when it is not.

\nHe said people are already forming emotional bonds with chatbots, some of which have even sent him messages \u201cpleading\u201d that they are conscious.

\nHe said: \u201cIf you have an emotional connection with something premised on it being conscious and it\u2019s not, that has the potential to be existentially toxic.\u201d
\n
Visit Bang Bizarre (main website) <\/a>
\n