During the 20th century, it was often considered scientifically suspect to talk about consciousness or to use psychological concepts that were not defined in terms of observable behavior. For even longer periods, consciousness, or the soul, was attributed only to some humans who in turn guarded the concept very carefully so that it did not risk being transferred to “others” (at least not fully). Against this background, it is surprising to note how the possibility of conscious machines has suddenly begun to be considered an important scientific question. In some cases, artificial consciousness is even treated as a strategic goal to be realized through new research efforts. Where does this sudden hopefulness about conscious AI come from, when consciousness was previously surrounded by strict skepticism and border control?
In an article, Kathinka Evers takes us behind the hopeful facade. Where does this unexpected optimism come from? Have we become more open-minded lately? Perhaps partly, answers Kathinka Evers, but the optimism about machine consciousness may also be a new form of human self-aggrandizement. How so? If we humans (or some human group) could produce artificial consciousness, we (or that group) would resemble the creator god that humans have long believed made them in his image. We (or that group) would take over the top position that humans have submitted to for millennia.
The hopefulness probably also reflects notions that machine consciousness could give artificial systems even more powerful capabilities that humanity could benefit from, writes Kathinka Evers. Conscious AI could make complex decisions that consciously consider human values and moral norms. It could protect us better than we can protect ourselves. That certainly sounds hopeful. But given that we are already programming drones and missiles to harm and kill people – in accordance with human values and norms – we should probably examine ourselves more carefully before we place too much faith in our machine images. Could they possibly create even greater threats rather than protect us from them?
Humans are contradictory. We are as compassionate as we are insensitive. Our sympathies for each other are selective and have made human groups in most cultures and historical periods violent and destructive towards other ethnic groups, towards women, towards the poor, towards other species, writes Kathinka Evers. The border surveillance of the concept of consciousness (or the soul) to ensure exclusivity is just one of many examples of this tendency to unite by distinguishing. Human values and norms separate us from each other as much as they connect us. Wouldn’t artificial consciousness, created in our image, also multiply our human conflicts? Should we rather hope that conscious AI – if it were possible – is not aligned with human values and moral norms?
If you want to travel further behind the hopeful facade, read the article here: Artificial Consciousness: Science Fiction, Utopia, or Pandora’s Box? Kathinka Evers also discusses whether artificial consciousness can be considered a possibility, how such consciousness could be detected, and what research into artificial consciousness can actually teach us. Perhaps it is rather that through such research we would learn more about ourselves and return from the detour much wiser?
Written by…
Pär Segerdahl, Associate Professor at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and editor of the Ethics Blog.
Evers, K. (2026). Artificial Consciousness: Science Fiction, Utopia, or Pandora’s Box? In Proceedings of the Paris Institute for Advanced Study (Vol. 27). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20267984
We like challenging questions
