AI lacks consciousness

The argument

John Searle claimed that mental processes cannot possibly consist of the execution of computer programs of any sort, since it is always possible for a person to follow the instructions of the program without undergoing the target mental process. He offered the thought experiment of a man who is isolated in a room in which he produces Chinese sentences as “output” in response to Chinese sentences he receives as “input” by following the rules of a program for engaging in a Chinese conversation—e.g., by using a simple conversation manual. Searle’s experiment proved that artificial intelligence is just that - artificial. It lacks the emotions, consciousness, and social awareness that humans possess. While AI can detect images, scenarios, etc, it cannot be fully aware because it lacks consciousness and awareness of a timeline. AI is programmed to complete a specific task in which they follow certain steps that they were programmed with, but every task comes with different avenues on how to accomplish it. AI is designed to be efficient and to get a task done, not to be conscious of outside factors that could affect the process of completing a task. AI lacks a worldly experience and awareness that ultimately makes them inferior to humans.

Premises

Counter-arguments

An ASI could easily build a hive mind — changing the nature of what it means to be human, and conscious. A hive mind is a centralized, systematized consciousness for the entire planet. You would have access to everyone’s thoughts, scientific discoveries, feelings, understanding, charisma. If the hive mind was connected to the internet, you would have immediate access to all of the world’s information.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Chinese Room is a thought experiment inside a live philosophical dispute, not a demonstration, and the standard replies — that understanding belongs to the whole system rather than to the person inside it — are neither mentioned nor answered. More importantly for this argument, what Searle concludes concerns understanding, and understanding is not what the position needs: a system that produces the right outputs without comprehending them is precisely the kind of thing that can act consequentially. [Rejecting P2] Describing what current systems are designed for does not bound what they can do. Optimising narrowly for a specified objective is the source of the risk usually argued on the other side rather than a reassurance against it, since a capable system pursuing a badly specified goal need feel nothing in order to cause harm. Emotions, worldly experience and awareness of time are listed without any account of why they would be required for large-scale effects. [Rejecting C] The conclusion turns on an unstated premise — that only a conscious thing could end humankind — which is never defended and is doubtful on its face, since pathogens, weapons systems and market mechanisms all produce catastrophic outcomes with no inner life at all.