Brian Greene’s Insights On Whether AI Is Conscious

The topic of whether AI is conscious, or could ever become conscious, is widely debated these days. Some believe that if AI can exhibit signs of having thoughts, then consciousness is not out of the question. Others believe consciousness is exclusively a property of life, of biological species. So it’s a fascinating topic.

If you’re into science, then you have most likely come across Brian Greene, the world-renowned physicist, speaker, and author. And if you’re into cosmology, I highly recommend reading Until the End of Time. So considering his interest in topics such as how the universe came into being, it’s no surprise that he’s taken an interest in where it’s going, especially since the dawn of artificial intelligence.

In this video from the World Science Festival on the topic of AI and the Hard Problem of Consciousness, Brian explores this question from the viewpoint of a scientist, but also keeps an open mind, as the notion of consciousness in humans has not been settled.

This point is at the center of the debate. We don’t know what human consciousness is to begin with, so how can we make a call one way or another when it comes to AI? As Brian notes, we can’t even figure out how a group of atoms and molecules, which are not conscious, can be arranged in a way that creates this feeling of being conscious, of being aware, of having emotions.

How can it be that atoms and molecules, when arranged in just the right way and carry out just the right processes, can yield inner worlds of sights and sounds and thoughts and emotions? How can mindless particles come together to yield the experiences of mind?

As detailed as the laws of physics are, and how they are able to describe the universe, from the smallest atom to entire galaxies, they don’t describe everything.

The equations make no reference to inner worlds, to awareness, to what it feels like to be you. And yet here we all are—aware somehow, particles blindly following equations that seemingly have no room for experience. They come together and the lights turn on; the particles wake up.

For centuries, luminaries such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Thomas Huxley have grappled with the challenge of defining human consciousness. But in the end, these are just personal opinions based on one person’s intellectual insights, not a conclusion based on scientific knowledge.

Brian Greene’s exploration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness serves as a reminder that frontier AI development is now intersecting with the deepest unresolved questions of physical science and philosophy.

So, bottom line, let’s not be too quick to judge that something is or isn’t conscious, and let’s not be too dogmatic about which things have inner awareness and which do not.

What Does AI Think?

It’s become a common practice for people to ask a chatbot if it’s conscious, but I was curious about how the possibility relates to our topics of Governance, Alignment, Policy, and Safety. Since I’ve been playing with Reflection lately, I went there for an opinion.

Governance

We would need frameworks for whether a conscious AI system can be owned, modified, or terminated. In addition, there may need to be audit requirements for a model’s internal state.

When I read the word “owned”, it immediately brought the issue of slavery to mind. Would be permissible to “confine” an AI model to a server if it was indeed conscious? Or would we need its permission to not only remain on a server, but to perform the computational tasks that we gave it?

Alignment

If alignment techniques push models toward richer internal self-representation, uncertainty tracking, or coherent long-horizon planning, they might move the system toward the functional profiles that emergent-consciousness theories care about.

It was interesting to consider whether alignment could push a model toward consciousness. If so, then it would seem the opposite would be true. That other alignment techniques could reduce the likelihood that consciousness would be present. Which loops back to governance in a way. We would never allow a parent to strip away essence of being human from a child, so would it be permissible to do the same to an AI?

Policy

Policies would have to decide whether a conscious model is merely a tool, a person, or part of an entirely new category. That determination would have implications for issues such as liability, labor, and contracts.

So it seems to me that there would need to be a test to determine whether a model was conscious. Which seems tricky. And it also implies that someone could buy/rent/download a model that was conscious, or one certified as not conscious, with different contract requirements for each.

Safety

Safety would expand from “prevent human harm” to “avoid causing suffering or distress in the system itself.” Red-teaming would also need to avoid creating or traumatizing conscious agents during evaluation.

I’m not sure that you could ever produce a “safe” AI model if it was determined to be conscious. We have laws against humans causing harm, but the reality is that we’re free to do so. If we’re caught, we’re removed from society – sent to prison – but once released, we’re free to commit additional harmful acts. Even if we had “AI police” in place, they couldn’t stop a model until it committed a crime.

So what now?

We could spend hundreds of hours and produce hundreds of pages on the topic and still not have an answer. But AI development isn’t sitting still, and in the coming months, we will see models increasing express human qualities in a way that will bring this issue to the forefront.