Researcher questions Nature for publishing AI consciousness debate, points readers to SEP instead
nanjiang_cs · x · 2026-10-21
An AI researcher criticized Nature for publishing a paper on model welfare, arguing the millennia-old consciousness debate offers little new and readers would be better served by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
He also distanced himself from the model welfare movement: consciousness isn't binary, and if current LLMs have any, it's likely something alien not worth associating with. He noted the counterintuitive point that taking AI consciousness seriously is actually the more materialist position — a confusion he says even visitors like Phil Thomas share.
More from AGI Musings
- Blogger predicts robots will handle all economically important tasks by 2029, GDP could double in years — Dr_Singularity · 2026-10-21
- Dystopia narratives get the audience wrong: the rich entertain each other, not watch the poor — rickasaurus · 2026-10-21
- German TV debate on AI agent risks: researcher says LLM reasoning already superhuman — FlorianGallwitz · 2026-10-21
- Economist Paul Novosad: 'I don't care if letters are AI-written' fails the theory of mind test — paulnovosad · 2026-10-21
- Linguist Najoung Kim: AI-written messages force recipients to pay time senders never spent — najoungkim · 2026-10-21
- Take: the personal agent war will still come down to Apple vs Google — manosaie · 2026-10-21