We must reject any notion of AI consciousness

Artificial intelligence systems won’t become conscious for the same reason they won’t become pregnant, says Dr John Pickering

Published 22 July 2026 607 words
TECHNOLOGY C1
We must reject any notion of AI consciousness

Professor Anil Seth rightly suggests that if we overestimate artificial intelligence (AI), we might be underestimating our own human abilities. However, Seth is only slightly unsure about whether AI systems like Claude could become conscious. The writer of this letter believes Seth should be much more certain and state this more strongly.

The letter argues that experiencing something as AI is not like experiencing anything at all, just as using a washing machine does not involve any personal experience. It suggests that this understanding doesn't require an academic education; common sense is enough. AI systems cannot become conscious for the same fundamental reason they cannot become pregnant – they are simply not built for that kind of biological or experiential process.

While Claude can be very useful when employed correctly, the ability to imitate or simulate having experiences does not mean that it actually possesses them. The author notes that figures like Richard Dawkins, and even Seth, seem only to express uncertainty about AI consciousness. This kind of hesitant uncertainty from prominent experts in the field is disappointing.

The author feels that only a complete and firm rejection of the idea of AI consciousness is appropriate. This strong stance is necessary to avoid misleading the public or ourselves about the true nature and capabilities of artificial intelligence. Such equivocation from leaders in AI research can lead to a misunderstanding of what AI is and what it is not.

The writer, Dr John Pickering from Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, is convinced that AI, no matter how advanced it seems, does not possess subjective awareness or consciousness. He emphasizes that AI systems operate on a completely different level than living organisms capable of consciousness.

Therefore, any suggestion or possibility that AI might develop consciousness should be firmly dismissed. The focus should remain on understanding AI as a tool, appreciating its benefits, but without attributing to it qualities it cannot possess, such as sentience or self-awareness. This clear distinction is crucial for a realistic perspective on AI development.

Vocabulary

overestimate — to believe something is better or more important than it really is
underestimate — to think that someone or something is not as good as they really are, or that a price or compliment is too low
artificial intelligence — computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence
consciousness — the state of being aware of your surroundings and your own existence
simulate — to imitate the appearance or character of something
possessed — had or owned
equivocation — the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself
rejection — the act of refusing to accept, believe in, or consider something
sentience — the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively
ambiguous — open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning

Discussion Questions

  1. Dr Pickering argues that common sense is sufficient to understand that AI cannot be conscious. What does he mean by common sense in this context?
  2. The letter compares AI consciousness to pregnancy. What is the intended message behind this analogy?
  3. Why does the author believe that 'tepid equivocation' from experts about AI consciousness is disappointing?

Based on an article from The Guardian.

Read the original article