A Philosophical Reality Check
As artificial intelligence advances rapidly, so does the public fascination with the idea that machines might soon “wake up.” From chatbots that mimic empathy to neural networks that generate human-like text, the boundary between simulation and experience has become blurred. Yet according to the authors of the new paper, this is an illusion grounded more in imagination than in evidence.
In their recent article There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence, Porębski and Figura argue that the concept of conscious AI rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what consciousness is. While AI can perform increasingly complex cognitive tasks, it lacks subjectivity: the ability to experience sensations, intentions, or emotions. Consciousness, in their view, is not simply a matter of processing information but a form of lived experience that cannot be replicated by code or computation.
This distinction is not merely academic. It determines how societies should approach questions of moral responsibility, rights, and accountability in the age of intelligent systems. If AI is not and cannot be conscious, then it should not be treated as an autonomous moral agent.
Why the Myth Persists
The authors identify two main reasons why the myth of conscious AI continues to thrive. The first is cultural: decades of science fiction and media narratives have shaped public imagination around the idea of sentient machines. The second is commercial: claims about “almost conscious” AI attract attention, investment, and excitement in an increasingly competitive technology market.
Porębski and Figura warn that such narratives serve to obscure the real ethical challenges of artificial intelligence. Instead of worrying about when machines will become self-aware, they argue, society should focus on how AI affects human autonomy, privacy, and labour. Framing AI as conscious risks shifting responsibility away from human designers and institutions, allowing companies to blame algorithms for outcomes that are ultimately the product of human decisions.
AI Consciousness and the Limits of Simulation
The paper emphasises that even the most advanced AI systems operate through pattern recognition and statistical prediction, not genuine understanding. When large language models produce text that feels conversational or emotionally nuanced, they are not expressing thought or intention. They are following probabilistic rules learned from vast datasets of human language.
In this sense, AI may simulate consciousness but never possess it. As Porębski and Figura put it, consciousness is not the output of a program but the product of biological, evolutionary, and social processes. The idea that it could emerge spontaneously in code assumes a false equivalence between correlation and comprehension.
This distinction has implications for the ethics of AI interaction. If users believe they are engaging with conscious agents, they may attribute emotions, intentions, or even moral weight to systems that are fundamentally inanimate. Such misperceptions can distort empathy and decision-making, leading people to overtrust automated systems or accept their recommendations without sufficient scrutiny.
A Call for Responsible Imagination
Rather than asking when AI will become conscious, the authors suggest a more productive question: how can humanity ensure that AI remains aligned with human values and social needs?
They advocate for a framework of responsible imagination, one that recognises the limits of technological metaphors and encourages reflection on what it means to be human in a world increasingly shaped by machines.
This approach does not deny the transformative potential of AI. Instead, it grounds technological optimism in realism. By acknowledging that machines do not possess minds, societies can better protect the ethical boundaries that preserve human dignity and agency.
Why This Matters for Digital Sustainability
The debate over AI consciousness is not just philosophical; it has practical consequences for digital sustainability. Building systems that imitate consciousness consumes vast computational and energy resources, often with little societal benefit. Pursuing artificial empathy or synthetic awareness may inflate technological hype while diverting attention from sustainability goals such as efficiency, transparency, and equity.
By rejecting the myth of conscious AI, researchers like Porębski and Figura invite a shift toward more responsible, sustainable design, one that values truth over spectacle and purpose over imitation.
Full Paper:
nature.com