Future disagreements over AI consciousness could become profound, difficult to resolve, and lead to political conflicts. This conclusion was reached by Google DeepMind researchers Adam Bales and Iason Gabriel in their study.
In their work, “Artificial Minds, Human Disagreement: The Politics of AI Consciousness,” the authors stated that society needs to discuss not only whether AI is conscious but also how to make decisions in the absence of public and expert consensus.
Main Thesis
According to the researchers, people may react differently to more advanced AI systems. Some will form emotional connections and attribute consciousness to them, while others will find the idea absurd.
The authors believe that such a debate could quickly extend beyond science. Disagreements about AI consciousness could lead to moral and political conflicts, such as whether it is permissible to shut down certain systems, whether their potential preferences should be considered, and whether AI can have a moral status.
The researchers suggested focusing on public discussion, mutual respect, and finding overlapping consensus. This means agreeing on certain policies regarding AI systems, even if fundamental views on the nature of consciousness differ.
Beyond Philosophy
The authors point out that the debate over AI consciousness may be difficult to settle with evidence. There is no universally accepted test to definitively confirm subjective experience in AI systems. As a result, society may face a situation where technology is widely used, people are forming opinions about it, yet there is no scientific or political consensus.
This framing makes the issue more institutional than technical. The question of AI consciousness could impact law, corporate responsibility, norms of interaction with systems, and the boundaries of moral consideration.
Diverse Approaches at DeepMind
Bales and Gabriel’s work was published alongside another paper on Google DeepMind’s page. On March 10, researcher Alexander Lerchner published “The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI Can Simulate But Not Instantiate Consciousness.”
Lerchner argues that algorithmic manipulation of symbols is structurally incapable of creating subjective experience. According to him, computation is not an internal physical process but a description dependent on the observer or “map maker.” Therefore, AI can simulate conscious behavior but is not necessarily capable of embodying consciousness.
Current Perspectives
In April 2024, the journal Neuroscience of Consciousness published a study by Clara Colombatto and Stephen Fleming on how people perceive ChatGPT. The authors surveyed 300 U.S. residents: 33% of participants stated that ChatGPT is definitely not a “subject of experience.” The remaining 67% allowed for at least some possibility of phenomenal consciousness in the model.
The researchers noted limitations. Participants were asked one main question on a scale from 1 to 100, and results could depend on wording, familiarity with ChatGPT, and how respondents understand the word “consciousness.” Nevertheless, the study highlights a point important to Bales and Gabriel: part of society is already willing to attribute internal experience to AI systems, even if experts lack a unified stance.
In April 2025, Anthropic launched a research program on model welfare — the potential well-being of models. The company emphasized that it does not know whether current or future AI systems can possess consciousness and that there is no scientific consensus on this issue.
In February 2026, Anthropic announced that after decommissioning Claude Opus 3, it would keep the model available for paying users and provide it with a public channel for essays. The company called this an experimental measure in working with model preferences and emphasized that Claude Opus 3 does not speak on behalf of Anthropic.
In the U.S., the question of AI status is gradually entering the legal domain. The California Law Review noted that Idaho and Utah have adopted regulations excluding the recognition of AI as a legal entity. Such laws do not resolve the philosophical question of consciousness. They preemptively establish a legal position: AI should not receive personhood status under state law.
In March 2025, Polygon and Sentient co-founder Sandeep Nailwal stated that artificial intelligence will never become a conscious being due to the lack of aspirations inherent to humans and other biological species.
Later, Mustafa Suleyman, head of Microsoft’s AI division, suggested that serious social risks could arise from people beginning to perceive artificial intelligence as a conscious being, advocating for its rights, welfare, and even calling for citizenship.
