He compares the debate to discussions of free will.
Like "do we have free will," "is AI conscious" seems to me like a semantic question that people pretend is an empirical question. Both concepts are too vague for empirical investigation and they have no real-world stakes.
People think "is AI conscious" has implications for how we ought to treat them, but if we all agreed the answer was "yes" it wouldn't actually settle anything because (again) "conscious" in this context is too vague a concept to be useful.
Like "do we have free will," "is AI conscious" seems to me like a semantic question that people pretend is an empirical question. Both concepts are too vague for empirical investigation and they have no real-world stakes.
He compares the debate to discussions of free will.
Like "do we have free will," "is AI conscious" seems to me like a semantic question that people pretend is an empirical question. Both concepts are too vague for empirical investigation and they have no real-world stakes.
Users endorse treating beings that appear conscious as if they are conscious because it provides a useful ethical guideline in the AI consciousness debate.