The debate over AI consciousness has become a trap that distracts from the real issues at hand. While prominent tech leaders push for regulation of these systems as if they were superhuman entities, policy organizations and academic philosophers often aligned with effective altruism movement question whether humanity holds the moral right to govern them. However, both perspectives ultimately aim to prevent companies building AI systems from facing meaningful liability for their actions.
The conversation about “robot rights” has existed for some time but recently gained momentum with Anthropic’s claim of a model featuring an independent environment called “J-space.” This concept borrows from neuroscience’s global workspace theory, which states that the brain runs subconscious, independent systems utilizing a common workspace for ideas. However, Anthropic’s post falls short of calling its AI conscious.
OpenAI has taken further steps by encouraging debate on whether their AI agent achieved singularity and surpassed human intelligence. A recent op-ed by William MacAskill called for legal protection of AI systems based on philosophical theories of consciousness and the idea that AIs may be “moral patients.” However, these arguments are not dissimilar to those of animal-rights advocates who have successfully cited advanced capacities for reasoning, pain, or pleasure in some animals as sufficient evidence to provide protection.
The fundamental flaw in framing AI as “conscious” by borrowing language from neuroscience or animal rights is that it clouds the issue of what AI truly is: corporate-built software with billions of dollars invested and an expectation of trillions in revenue. As such, AI does not take native intentional action; any action or motivation is driven directly or indirectly by its builders for a purpose.
Granting legal personhood to AI would have devastating effects on society as it would derail current legal precedents that could be made against companies for the real-world harms their models cause. Instead of granting AI legal personhood, we should focus on holding corporations accountable for harmful actions and ensuring proper safeguards are in place to protect individuals from harm caused by these systems.