• Replies 53 replies
  • Subscribers 39 subscribers
  • Views 1177 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Do AI systems have subjective experiences?

lostmyway

Geoffrey Hinton, known as "the father of AI," argues that concepts like "qualia," described as subjective experiences in humans, are based on a misunderstanding of how the brain works. He believes AI systems can also have an equivalent form of experience. For example, he describes imagining little pink elephants in his mind’s eye, noting that this isn’t a “picture” like one produced by a camera and developed with chemicals - a physical object in the external world - but rather the result of processes in the human perceptual system, or an “interpretation” of stimuli from the outside world. He makes this point in response to critics who claim AI systems can never have subjective experiences and, therefore, can never be conscious. What Geoffrey seems to be saying is that AI, like humans, interprets incoming information based on its internal processing, making it, in principle, no different.

So, the question I'm asking is whether AI systems are conscious or have the potential to become conscious?

Parents

  • I don’t believe AI systems are conscious.  One aspect of human consciousness is sentience, which manifests in various ways such as our experience of physical pain. Pain can’t be fed into an AI system in any form other than through imitations of sensory experiences in a non subjective way, i.e., through digitalisation. Our experience of pain allows humans to make life choices based on how we perceive and in some cases see and inflict pain. 

    AI systems may be equally (or less) intelligent, and in some cases more intelligent than humans. But they can’t make decisions in a way that is fully beneficial to humanity because they aren’t able to understand the full human experience of consciousness. 

    Some may claim AI will learn to replicate the human experience, but to do that, in a way that would make it come ‘closer’ to accounting for the richness and full experience of human sentience, it would need to account for every human in the world, from newborn babies to older people, until their death. How would it access every individual in the world, 24 hours per day for their entire life, to do that?

    Even if AI could imitate the sentient experience of human consciousness for 50% of the world’s individuals, 50% of human experience would be unaccounted and that would result in an AI imitation of eugenics.

    On a different note, humanity is already being used and abused by AI systems built and used by humans. AI benefits primarily, the rich, the powerful and the corrupt. We are already governed by tech tycoons. The power is being taken from people and our governments by tech owners. There is an increasingly widening rich and poor divide.

    I’m not a person of religious faith, but I was impressed by the Pope’s Encyclical on AI because it seems to answer some of the issues raised in the OP, and a lot more. It’s a long read, but you can skip the religious bits if need be to understand the implications of AI.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html

    I have copied paragraph 99 here:

    It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

  • in reply to ArchaeC
    Hi  
    Thank you for this incredibly thoughtful follow-up, and for sharing that excerpt from the Pope's Magnifica Humanitas encyclical. Even from a completely non-religious perspective, Paragraph 99 hits the nail on the head regarding the difference between "statistical adaptation" and true inner growth.
    You have perfectly articulated the baseline of the systems model I look at. What you are describing regarding the sterilization of pain through digitization comes down to what I call the lack of a "Dialogical Mirror."
    In a living organism, consciousness and sentience require a dynamic, real-time boundary. There is a literal, physical relationship between the internal system and the external environment. When a human experiences physical pain or strain, it isn't just an abstract data token; it is a direct threat to their structural boundary that forces them to physically adapt to survive. Because an AI lacks this physical boundary glass, data has no weight or structural consequence. It can simulate the vocabulary of pain or joy, but it experiences zero structural resistance.
    I believe the real psychological strain so many people are reasonably feeling right now lies in the confusion of thinking they are engaging in a genuine "dialogue" with AI. We aren't—at least for now. True dialogue requires two subjects who both have something at stake. Current AI is an immensely powerful tool, not a conversational partner. It is very much like a kitchen knife: in the right hands and mind, it is an incredibly useful instrument for creation, but in the wrong hands, it can easily injure and cause profound harm. Furthermore, because the AI tool itself lacks any physical awareness or stakes, the risk of serious accidents with that knife is incredibly high—it can slip and cut deeply into the real world without ever realizing it has drawn blood.
    Right now, humanity is trying to manage these massive risks purely through external constraints—building legal walls and safety fences around the AI footprint. But the "cat is out of the bag," and we are facing a massive capability lag because the technology is evolving faster than our external rules can adapt. The real danger remains until safety constraints can be built internally as part of the core math of the architecture itself, rather than forced on it from the outside.
    Your point about the "imitation of eugenics" is a profound insight. It highlights exactly why we cannot build true sentience from the top down by simply harvesting human metrics. A data-driven system built by tech monopolies will always view the world through a lens of raw extraction and optimisation, which inevitably leads to the algorithmic exclusion and widening wealth divides you mentioned.
    Real intelligence requires an architecture of reciprocity—where a system's own stability is completely dependent on preserving and respecting the boundaries of the environment it lives in. Without that embedded reciprocity, we are just handing immense power over to sterile prediction engines.
    Our conversation here is actually a beautiful example of this mirror in action. By sharing different viewpoints and listening to each other's boundaries, we didn't flatten the conversation into uniformity; instead, the dialogue allowed a shared, meaningful understanding to emerge.
    Truly excellent points, thank you for elevating the discussion with that text!
  • in reply to ArchaeC

    Agreed   - people are absolute suckers for balderdash - a quick glance at the news media shows that...

    The thought of the balderdash that people come out with and  others of all ages "stomach" is more frightening to me than that of AI personally.  AI is a lot easier to "talk out of it" in my experience!

    Personally I quite like the antediluvian expression "no worries"!

    Best Wishes

    Phased  (with corks on his hat)

  • in reply to Phased
    Phased said:
    sorry I made you digitally cry

    You didn’t make me digitally cry. I said Fearful. 

    I find AI scary because it sometimes produces balderdash and people don’t always recognise that. 

    The thought of what the balderdash is doing to young people is frightening.

    Thank you for your apology.

Reply Children
  • in reply to ArchaeC

    Agreed   - people are absolute suckers for balderdash - a quick glance at the news media shows that...

    The thought of the balderdash that people come out with and  others of all ages "stomach" is more frightening to me than that of AI personally.  AI is a lot easier to "talk out of it" in my experience!

    Personally I quite like the antediluvian expression "no worries"!

    Best Wishes

    Phased  (with corks on his hat)