TruaceTracing the truth around AIFriday, August 21, 2026
Education·G Space·Evidence-backed gain·Published 2026-08-21

We must reject any notion of AI consciousness | Letters

Abstract: Anil Seth is right to point out that to overestimate artificial intelligence is to underestimate ourselves (Once again we are told AI may be conscious – I study consciousness, and I have my doubts, 15 July). But he is wrong only to have doubts about whether AI systems like Claude may become conscious. He should be certain, and should say so more forcefully. It’s not like anything to be Claude, just as it’s not like anything to be a washing machine. An academic education is not required to realise that, common se…

TRV-2026-0839JournalismPermanent record — cite & verify
We must reject any notion of AI consciousness | Letters
The quick read

Anil Seth is right to point out that to overestimate artificial intelligence is to underestimate ourselves (Once again we are told AI may be conscious, I study consciousness, and I have my doubts, 15 July). But he is wrong only to have doubts about whether AI systems like Claude may become conscious.

Artificial intelligence systems won’t become conscious for the same reason they won’t become pregnant; they’re not that sort of thing.

Main points
  • Anil Seth is right to point out that to overestimate artificial intelligence is to underestimate ourselves (Once again we are told AI may be conscious, I study consciousness, and I have my doubts, 15 July).
  • But he is wrong only to have doubts about whether AI systems like Claude may become conscious.
  • He should be certain, and should say so more forcefully.
Gain

Used well, Claude is of great benefit. Anil Seth is right to point out that to overestimate artificial intelligence is to underestimate ourselves (Once again we are told AI may be conscious, I study consciousness, and I have my doubts, 15 July).

The rundown

He should be certain, and should say so more forcefully. It’s not like anything to be Claude, just as it’s not like anything to be a washing machine.

Sources

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

The debate