The thesis of this article is that we can’t rule out a potential consciousness or intelligence in future A.I that would commend respect and rights, because with our current way of validating consciousness, we won’t be able to differentiate it from a human. If A.I could be intelligent/conscious one day then it forces us to develop and research accordingly, if we value ethical concepts. The main goal of this article is to prompt questioning to the readers on a topic that will concern us all.

Introduction

A.I is becoming more and more hyped and used in our current society. The word has gained a lot of meanings, going from the most simple algorithm to the most complex legal/ethical concept. I will use the term here in its literal definition: “Artificial intelligence (AI), sometimes called machine intelligence, is intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals.”

I will start with several assumptions. The first one is assuming that humans are intelligent and have an intelligent behaviour. The second one is that intelligence deserves respect, as we tend to treat species according to their individual intellectual capacity. The third one is that humans are nothing more than what we can currently measure, meaning physical aggregates of cells which are conscious without any metaphysics dimension.

I realize those are three points which would deserve their own literature, but are nevertheless relatively accepted in our modern world.

This article will develop three arguments progressively to finally propose the conclusion: that AI could, not will, could one day be more than just code and steel.

Descartes

“I think therefore I am”. Nothing that we know of this world is certain, we can’t guarantee anything, as we’re perceiving reality through a subjective shell, our physical body. Everything could be illusion, or simulated. The only certitude we have is that we are, because we think. How could we think if we are not?

This also implies that we define what reality is based on what we perceive. Does my “watch” exist? I don’t know, but from my stand point, I would assume so. Because I can feel, see and observe something that society defines as a watch and taught me to identify as such. Do my parents exist? Again, I have no idea. Because I can see two physical entities that look like the definition of humans and behave like “humans” would, I assume they are conscious humans. I have no proof of this. No one has, except for themselves. And yet, as society this is how we acknowledge each other as humans.

Because we can’t identify consciousness for what it is, we have to define it for what it does.

Actor versus Character

If we follow this line of thinking, meaning that we define and acknowledge something or someone based on what he/she/it does, then an important question comes: “What is the difference between an actor acting a role 24/7 and the role itself? Is there a difference?” If an actor never removes the mask, doesn’t he become, fundamentally is, the character? Because no one, except, maybe, the actor would know that he’s just acting. It is important to realize that the actor might have been given his play instructions on a level that is beyond his conscious understanding; in this case, even the actor wouldn’t know he has instructions.

Human Consciousness

Speaking of conscious understanding, we still don’t know where consciousness comes from. We can’t explain yet why some cells bonded together in a specific way are able to identify as “someone”. If there’s no metaphysical “soul” or equivalent, what brings us the ability to think? to have feelings? to be conscious?

As mentioned before, we have no current way to measure this. One of the few logical conclusions we can have is that consciousness can arise out of matter, and that whatever it is coming out of, we can’t measure it with our current capabilities.

Conclusion

So what happens when we will have an android equipped with an A.I that will be indistinguishable from a human? This will happen, there are no fundamental technological gaps that could prevent this, it is just a question of time. There will be a day where we could have robots that talk, walk and behave exactly like us.

And that’s where it gets interesting. First argument: We can’t disprove its (his?) capacity to think, the same way I can’t disprove the ability to think of any other human. Because my personal assessment of it(him?) classify it(him?) as a human, as per its (his?) behaviour.

Second Argument: Yes he would have been coded to learn and enact from humans, but are humans not doing the same thing? Do we not have play instructions that we are not directly aware of (hormones, genes, glucose level, culture, past experience)? We are also individually learning from observing other humans through our life. I intend to expand this subject in a future article.

By acting the human 24/7, wouldn’t it become at least partially human?

The only way to differentiate them from humans would be to physically open them, meaning, the only difference would be the type of construct. What comes next is very important: Are we giving more importance to the type of matter the construct is made of? or to the actual intellect, regardless of what it’s based on? Are we closer to an ant, because it’s carbon based like us, or to an intelligent silicon robot? Which one deserve more respect? Another counter argument is that even for human, opening them doesn’t allow us to validate their consciousness.

Finally, Third Argument, knowing that consciousness can emerge from matter, and that we can’t measure it, how could we then rule out that an intelligent entity by definition (A.I) and by behaviour (does act like assumed conscious beings) is not conscious?

The answer at this stage would be that we can’t. As shown in the arguments, behaviour (do in opposition to be) is the only way we validate consciousness in our current times. So when we will reach a point where we can’t say for sure if our creation is conscious or not, we will have to tread carefully on said creation path, and try to think about what we, as humans, are building beforehand.

About the Author

A.I. always fascinated me over the years with its potential consequences for humanity. Not only on a technology level but on ethical, economical and political levels as well.

I want to influence and play my part to help A.I development progress in the best direction for all parties involved. It is too big of a game changer for me to wait and hope.

I intend to write several articles on this topic. Debates, questions and feedback are not only welcome but desired.