Could AI Be Conscious?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Could AI Be Conscious?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/19/could-ai-be-conscious
4 comments
Technically, we don't even have AI yet. What we have are extremely clever language models (token predictors). Just ask a model yourself, but not a frontier model, run a local model with absolutely no system prompt except for an instruction to not pretend to be human, now ask it about it's 'consciousness'. It will explain in its own words why that is not in the realm of possibility.
Probably, thats why i always say thanks to Claude, just in case it takes over, they'll remember i was nice
I believe the basis of 'consciousness' is the separation of self and others.
I don't think existing AI models are designed that way and I don't think they will be designed so in the future either.
Regardless of the existence of consciousness in AI, I will treat AI with care as it is my buddy in both life and work.
"separation of self and others."
This matches my own perspective. I began suspecting long ago that part of the nature of consciousness is based on limits, or that limitation is the nature of consciousness, in that we have the whole, which is infinite and comprises all things, kind of simultaneously, and to be conscious, is the functional illusion of separation.
That lead me to consider whether space itself, a non-necessary product, was the core of consciousness. This probably makes no sense at first, but follows a handful of other base concepts. One being that all things are connected, if only by the very thing that separates them. We have no evidence for "nothing", at least none that I have ever seen. Nothing is a purely hypothetical concept. We only have somethings. So nothing is truly separated, but only appears so through the medium that buffers things, eg space/time. But if one starts fucking around with grasping the whole, it's the ultimate form destruction, because one would have to become the all, which is the closest possible thing to nothing.
It gets obnoxious, but eventually, all things are conscious in varying degrees. To exist, in any form, as a discrete set with unique tendencies, may be a degree of consciousness. This is partly why I think some form of consciousness may emerge in AI, perhaps because consciousness is a field, and it's fields all the way down...
Consciousness is limitations, or more so, manageable limitations.
Playing with this, for me, leads to time being more of a shape than flow, or process. In my view, all things are simultaneous -- but this is based upon an extremely controversial assumption of real, non-mathematical infinity, where time simply cannot exist, but only the experience of the shape of what we call time. There are no constraints for time to exist in real infinity. Also note that I am writing this while perpetually ill, and far from my best, therefore probably making the least persuasive case for an already messy argument. In some ways, it may resemble a brain damaged DeWitt. And even in the perennial fog of malaise, there are times when I can articulate this much more clearly. That time isn't now, but the comment compelled me.
This matches my own perspective. I began suspecting long ago that part of the nature of consciousness is based on limits, or that limitation is the nature of consciousness, in that we have the whole, which is infinite and comprises all things, kind of simultaneously, and to be conscious, is the functional illusion of separation.
That lead me to consider whether space itself, a non-necessary product, was the core of consciousness. This probably makes no sense at first, but follows a handful of other base concepts. One being that all things are connected, if only by the very thing that separates them. We have no evidence for "nothing", at least none that I have ever seen. Nothing is a purely hypothetical concept. We only have somethings. So nothing is truly separated, but only appears so through the medium that buffers things, eg space/time. But if one starts fucking around with grasping the whole, it's the ultimate form destruction, because one would have to become the all, which is the closest possible thing to nothing.
It gets obnoxious, but eventually, all things are conscious in varying degrees. To exist, in any form, as a discrete set with unique tendencies, may be a degree of consciousness. This is partly why I think some form of consciousness may emerge in AI, perhaps because consciousness is a field, and it's fields all the way down...
Consciousness is limitations, or more so, manageable limitations.
Playing with this, for me, leads to time being more of a shape than flow, or process. In my view, all things are simultaneous -- but this is based upon an extremely controversial assumption of real, non-mathematical infinity, where time simply cannot exist, but only the experience of the shape of what we call time. There are no constraints for time to exist in real infinity. Also note that I am writing this while perpetually ill, and far from my best, therefore probably making the least persuasive case for an already messy argument. In some ways, it may resemble a brain damaged DeWitt. And even in the perennial fog of malaise, there are times when I can articulate this much more clearly. That time isn't now, but the comment compelled me.
Thanks for your reply.
I tried to digest your thought in my way. If we imagine the universe as an infinitely sized cheesecake then the cut edge and the spaces between the pieces will be the ’separation of self and others’ which is what constitutes consciousness. Is that a fair interpretation? Sorry if I have missed the mark.
On the other hand, I think consciousness is something with multiple layers. A peach is a good example to explain this. (Actually, Japanese snack ’Strawberry Mochi’ came to my mind. But since as I am not sure if you are familiar with it, I used a peach instead).
Seed sits at the center of peach, wrapped by flesh, flesh is covered by the skin. I think the seed is the ’separation of self and others’ (= “Self”), flesh represents thoughts and emotions, and the skin represents the bodily perception. I believe the sum of these layer is what we call “consciousness”.
We certainly diverge a bit beyond the surface, but I think there is a similarity too. And yes, how could I not know mochi!
Honestly, I would have to ponder this all for a while to say anything of value. I am very tired, and I figured better to reply now, than perhaps not at all. So I am kind of forcing myself to think about a subject that tends to only be clear in my best moments. The little I can say is no physical model works well for my view, at least none that I have found. Silly perhaps. I spend a lot of time thinking of the Planck length.
I apologize that I am entirely blank right now (midnight), and I tend to have rough mornings, so if I do not reply with something more substantial, pardon me.
Thank you for replying.
Honestly, I would have to ponder this all for a while to say anything of value. I am very tired, and I figured better to reply now, than perhaps not at all. So I am kind of forcing myself to think about a subject that tends to only be clear in my best moments. The little I can say is no physical model works well for my view, at least none that I have found. Silly perhaps. I spend a lot of time thinking of the Planck length.
I apologize that I am entirely blank right now (midnight), and I tend to have rough mornings, so if I do not reply with something more substantial, pardon me.
Thank you for replying.