pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.19115 · v2 · pith:FZ4HBSP6new · submitted 2025-11-24 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CY

AI Consciousness and Existential Risk

Rufin VanRullen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 18:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CY
keywords AI consciousnessexistential riskAI intelligenceAI safetyAI alignmentconsciousness distinction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intelligence directly predicts AI existential threats while consciousness does not.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to untangle why people link AI consciousness with existential risk. It shows that this connection rests on mixing up consciousness with intelligence, two properties that are distinct in both theory and evidence. Intelligence increases an AI's capability to cause widespread harm, but consciousness on its own adds no such direct threat. This separation matters because it lets safety work focus on actual capability risks instead of sentience fears. Some side connections remain possible, such as consciousness aiding alignment or serving as a step toward greater intelligence.

Core claim

The central claim is that existential risk from AI arises mainly from high intelligence, which equips a system with both the ability and potential objectives to harm humanity, whereas consciousness is not a direct contributor to that risk. The frequent conflation of the two topics stems from a confusion that treats consciousness and intelligence as the same or necessarily linked. Recognizing their independence means conscious AI need not heighten existential concerns, though consciousness could still matter indirectly by supporting alignment efforts or by enabling certain advanced capabilities.

What carries the argument

The empirical and theoretical distinction between consciousness and intelligence as independent properties.

If this is right

  • AI safety efforts should monitor intelligence levels as the main indicator of potential harm rather than presence of consciousness.
  • Consciousness might be pursued deliberately as a route to better AI alignment that reduces overall risk.
  • Any capabilities that depend on consciousness could raise risk indirectly only if they also produce higher intelligence.
  • Policy and regulation can target capable systems without assuming that conscious ones are automatically more dangerous.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same separation could clarify discussions of AI moral status or rights without automatically assuming added danger.
  • Benchmarks that test consciousness apart from capability scores would help confirm whether the two remain independent in practice.
  • Similar distinctions between awareness and power might apply to risk analysis in other technologies like robotics or synthetic biology.

Load-bearing premise

Consciousness and intelligence are distinct properties that can occur separately in AI systems.

What would settle it

An AI that develops consciousness without any gain in intelligence or risk potential, or conversely an increase in existential threat tied only to consciousness while intelligence stays fixed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19115 by Rufin VanRullen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Intelligence and consciousness are two separate dimensions. Current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Secondhand x-risk from AI consciousness. Two specific scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In AI, the existential risk denotes the hypothetical threat posed by an artificial system that would possess both the capability and the objective, either directly or indirectly, to eradicate humanity. This issue is gaining prominence in scientific debate due to recent technical advancements and increased media coverage. In parallel, AI progress has sparked speculation and studies about the potential emergence of artificial consciousness. The two questions, AI consciousness and existential risk, are sometimes conflated, as if the former entailed the latter. Here, I explain that this view stems from a common confusion between consciousness and intelligence. Yet these two properties are empirically and theoretically distinct. Arguably, while intelligence is a direct predictor of an AI system's existential threat, consciousness is not. There are, however, certain incidental scenarios in which consciousness could influence existential risk, in either direction. Consciousness could be viewed as a means towards AI alignment, thereby lowering existential risk; or, it could be a precondition for reaching certain capabilities or levels of intelligence, and thus positively related to existential risk. Recognizing these distinctions can help AI safety researchers and public policymakers focus on the most pressing issues.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that AI existential risk and artificial consciousness are often conflated due to a confusion between consciousness and intelligence. It asserts that these properties are empirically and theoretically distinct, with intelligence serving as a direct predictor of an AI system's potential to pose an existential threat while consciousness does not, although incidental pathways exist in which consciousness could either reduce risk (e.g., via improved alignment) or increase it (e.g., as a precondition for advanced capabilities).

Significance. If the core distinction holds, the clarification could usefully redirect AI safety discussions and policy attention toward capability control and objective alignment rather than consciousness per se. The manuscript draws on standard philosophical separations and explicitly carves out bidirectional incidental links, which is a modest but constructive contribution for a short conceptual piece; however, its overall significance remains limited by the absence of new evidence, formalization, or testable implications.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and opening paragraphs: the claim that consciousness and intelligence 'are empirically and theoretically distinct' is asserted without supporting citations, examples, or argument for the empirical half of the distinction. This is load-bearing for the central conclusion that consciousness is not a direct predictor of existential threat, because the separation itself is what decouples the two relations to risk.
minor comments (2)
  1. The incidental scenarios (consciousness aiding alignment or serving as a precondition for intelligence) are mentioned but not illustrated with even a brief hypothetical example; adding one would improve clarity without lengthening the paper substantially.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from one or two key references to the philosophical literature on the consciousness-intelligence distinction (e.g., work separating phenomenal consciousness from functional intelligence) to anchor the 'theoretically distinct' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for recognizing the paper's potential to help redirect AI safety discussions toward capability control and alignment. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and opening paragraphs: the claim that consciousness and intelligence 'are empirically and theoretically distinct' is asserted without supporting citations, examples, or argument for the empirical half of the distinction. This is load-bearing for the central conclusion that consciousness is not a direct predictor of existential threat, because the separation itself is what decouples the two relations to risk.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript asserts the distinction without citations or examples in the abstract and opening paragraphs, and that this claim is central to decoupling consciousness from direct existential risk. While the theoretical separation follows from established philosophy of mind (intelligence as functional/computational capacity versus consciousness as phenomenal experience), we accept that the empirical half requires explicit support. In revision we will add a short explanatory clause plus citations to relevant literature (e.g., Chalmers on philosophical zombies and standard treatments of access versus phenomenal consciousness) to illustrate possible dissociation, such as the fact that current high-performing AI systems exhibit intelligence without evidence of consciousness. This addition will strengthen rather than alter the core argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a short conceptual clarification that distinguishes consciousness from intelligence to separate their relations to existential risk. It asserts the distinction as both empirical and theoretical, notes that intelligence tracks capability for harm while consciousness does not directly, and explicitly carves out incidental pathways in both directions. No quantitative claims, formal derivations, equations, or empirical tests are offered; the argument rests on standard philosophical separation rather than any contested technical premise that could be internally falsified or reduced to self-referential inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproven premise that consciousness and intelligence are distinct, with no independent evidence or formal support provided in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Consciousness and intelligence are empirically and theoretically distinct.
    Invoked directly in the abstract as the basis for separating the two issues.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5709 in / 1013 out tokens · 27660 ms · 2026-05-21T18:22:12.302999+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 102 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Artificial general intelligence: Concept, state of the art, and future prospects.Journal of Artificial General Intelligence5,1 (2014)

    Goertzel, B. Artificial general intelligence: Concept, state of the art, and future prospects.Journal of Artificial General Intelligence5,1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Bostrom, N.Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies(Oxford University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Amodei, D.Machines of loving grace.2024.https://www.darioamodei.com/ essay/machines-of-loving-grace

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    An overview of catastrophic ai risks

    Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M. & Woodside, T. An overview of catastrophic AI risks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12001(2023). 11

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    & signatories.Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter2023

    Bengio, Y. & signatories.Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter2023. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/. 6.https://thecurve.goldengateinstitute.org/

    work page

  6. [6]

    & Dean, R.AI 2027tech

    Kokotajlo, D., Alexander, S., Larsen, T., Lifland, E. & Dean, R.AI 2027tech. rep. (AI Futures Project, 2025).https://ai-2027.com/

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Russell, S.Human compatible: AI and the problem of control(Penguin Uk, 2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    10.https://moratorium.ai/

    Bengio, Y.et al.Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress.Science384, 842–845 (2024). 10.https://moratorium.ai/. 11.https://superintelligence-statement.org/

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Advanced AI and the ethics of risking everything (2025)

    H¨ aggstr¨ om, O. Advanced AI and the ethics of risking everything (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    & Soares, N.If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies(Little, Brown and Company, 2025)

    Yudkowsky, E. & Soares, N.If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies(Little, Brown and Company, 2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    & Russell, S.TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI2023

    Critch, A. & Russell, S.TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI2023. arXiv:2306.06924 [cs.AI].https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2306.06924. 15.https://safe.ai/. 16.https://futureoflife.org/focus-area/artificial-intelligence/

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    Russell, S. J. & Norvig, P.Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.) (Pearson, 2021). 18.https://amcs-community.org/open-letters/

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    What is it like to be a bat?The Philosophical Review83,435–50 (1974)

    Nagel, T. What is it like to be a bat?The Philosophical Review83,435–50 (1974)

    work page 1974

  14. [14]

    On a confusion about a function of consciousness.Behavioral and brain sciences18,227–247 (1995)

    Block, N. On a confusion about a function of consciousness.Behavioral and brain sciences18,227–247 (1995)

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    Chalmers, D. J. Facing up to the problem of consciousness.Journal of con- sciousness studies2,200–219 (1995)

    work page 1995

  16. [16]

    & Kouider, S

    Dehaene, S., Lau, H. & Kouider, S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it?Science358,486–492 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models.Trans- former Circuits Thread.https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/ index.html(2025)

    Lindsey, J. Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models.Trans- former Circuits Thread.https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/ index.html(2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    & Rosenblatt, J

    Berg, C., de Lucena, D. & Rosenblatt, J. Large Language Models Report Subjec- tive Experience Under Self-Referential Processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24797 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Metzinger, T.Being no one: The self-model theory of subjectivity(mit Press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Pre-reflective self-as-subject from experiential and empirical per- spectives.Consciousness and cognition16,583–599 (2007)

    Legrand, D. Pre-reflective self-as-subject from experiential and empirical per- spectives.Consciousness and cognition16,583–599 (2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Seth, A. K. & Bayne, T. Theories of consciousness.Nature reviews neuroscience 23,439–452 (2022). 12

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Koch, C.The feeling of life itself: Why consciousness is widespread but can’t be computed(Mit Press, 2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    & Raison, C

    Tononi, G. & Raison, C. Artificial intelligence, consciousness and psychiatry. World Psychiatry23,309 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04571(2024)

    Findlay, G.et al.Dissociating artificial intelligence from artificial consciousness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04571(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Seth, A. K. Conscious artificial intelligence and biological naturalism.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1–42 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    J.A cognitive theory of consciousness(Cambridge University Press, 1993)

    Baars, B. J.A cognitive theory of consciousness(Cambridge University Press, 1993)

    work page 1993

  27. [27]

    Rosenthal, D. M. Higher-order thoughts and the appendage theory of conscious- ness.Philosophical Psychology6,155–166 (1993)

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    Pennartz, C. M. Consciousness, representation, action: the importance of being goal-directed.Trends in cognitive sciences22,137–153 (2018)

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Graziano, M. S. & Webb, T. W. The attention schema theory: a mechanistic account of subjective awareness.Frontiers in psychology6,500 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    M., Farisco, M

    Pennartz, C. M., Farisco, M. & Evers, K. Indicators and criteria of consciousness in animals and intelligent machines: an inside-out approach.Frontiers in systems neuroscience13,25 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    & Blum, L

    Blum, M. & Blum, L. A theoretical computer science perspective on conscious- ness.Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness8,1–42 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    & Blum, M

    Blum, L. & Blum, M. A theory of consciousness from a theoretical computer science perspective: Insights from the Conscious Turing Machine.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119,e2115934119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    & Blum, M

    Blum, L. & Blum, M. A theoretical computer science perspective on conscious- ness and artificial general intelligence.Engineering25,12–16 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness

    Butlin, P.et al. Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Sci- ence of Consciousness2023. arXiv:2308.08708 [cs.AI].https://arxiv.org/ abs/2308.08708

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Aru, J., Larkum, M. E. & Shine, J. M. The feasibility of artificial consciousness through the lens of neuroscience.Trends in neurosciences46,1008–1017 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    & Changeux, J.-P

    Farisco, M., Evers, K. & Changeux, J.-P. Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain.Neural Networks180,106714 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Evers, K.et al.Preliminaries to artificial consciousness: a multidimensional heuristic approach.Physics of Life Reviews(2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Palatable conceptions of disembodied being: Terra incognita in the space of possible minds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16348(2025)

    Shanahan, M. Palatable conceptions of disembodied being: Terra incognita in the space of possible minds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16348(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    AI consciousness: A centrist manifesto.Phil

    Birch, J. AI consciousness: A centrist manifesto.Phil. papers preprint.https: //philpapers.org/rec/BIRACA-4(2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    L., Schwitzgebel, E

    Schneider, S., Sahner, D., Kuhn, R. L., Schwitzgebel, E. & Bailey, M. Is Ai Con- scious? A Primer on the Myths and Confusions Driving the Debate.Philosophy and Mind Sciences(forthcoming)

    work page

  41. [41]

    AI and Consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09858(2025)

    Schwitzgebel, E. AI and Consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09858(2025). 13

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    sciencedirect

    Butlin, P.et al.Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems.Trends in Cognitive Sciences.issn: 1364-6613.https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science/article/pii/S1364661325002864(2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Agnosticism About Artificial Consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13145 (2024)

    McClelland, T. Agnosticism About Artificial Consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13145 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Biological Intelligence.Royal Institution Dis- course, May 30

    Hinton, G.Digital Intelligence vs. Biological Intelligence.Royal Institution Dis- course, May 30. 2025.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdziSLYzHw

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Legg, S., Hutter, M.,et al.A collection of definitions of intelligence.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and applications157,17 (2007)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Dreksler, N.et al.Subjective experience in AI systems: what do AI researchers and the public believe?arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11945(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Why conscious AI is a bad, bad idea.Nautilus.https://nautil.us/ why-conscious-ai-is-a-bad-bad-idea-302937/(2023)

    Seth, A. Why conscious AI is a bad, bad idea.Nautilus.https://nautil.us/ why-conscious-ai-is-a-bad-bad-idea-302937/(2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Aschenbrenner, L.Situational awareness: the decade ahead2024.https : / / situational-awareness.ai/

    work page

  49. [49]

    Ilievski, F.et al.Aligning generalization between humans and machines.Nature Machine Intelligence,1–12 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem ComplexityinNeurIPS (2025).https : / / ml - site

    Shojaee*, P.et al. The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem ComplexityinNeurIPS (2025).https : / / ml - site . cdn - apple . com / papers / the - illusion - of - thinking.pdf

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Eriksson, M.et al.Can we trust ai benchmarks? an interdisciplinary review of current issues in ai evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06559(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Cheng, Z.et al.Benchmarking is Broken-Don’t Let AI be its Own Judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07575(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    The symbol grounding problem.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42,335–346 (1990)

    Harnad, S. The symbol grounding problem.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42,335–346 (1990)

    work page 1990

  54. [54]

    Gibson, J.The ecological approach to visual perception1979

    work page

  55. [55]

    Intentionality.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2003)

    Jacob, P. Intentionality.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2003)

    work page 2003

  56. [56]

    O’regan, J. K. & No¨ e, A. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual conscious- ness.Behavioral and brain sciences24,939–973 (2001)

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    Chalmers, D. J. Does thought require sensory grounding? From pure thinkers to large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09605(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Harris, Z. S. Distributional structure.Word10,146–162 (1954)

    work page 1954

  59. [59]

    Manning, C. D. Human language understanding & reasoning.Daedalus151, 127–138 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    The Platonic Representation Hypothesis

    Huh, M., Cheung, B., Wang, T. & Isola, P. The platonic representation hypoth- esis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07987(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    H¨ aggstr¨ om, O.Are Large Language Models Intelligent? Are Humans?inCom- puter Sciences & Mathematics Forum8(2023), 68

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    Symbols and grounding in large language models.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A381,20220041 (2023)

    Pavlick, E. Symbols and grounding in large language models.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A381,20220041 (2023). 14

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Bender, E. M. & Koller, A.Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of datainProceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics(2020), 5185–5198

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Haikonen, P. O. On artificial intelligence and consciousness.Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness7,73–82 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A

    Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S.On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?inProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency(2021), 610–623

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Lake, B. M. & Murphy, G. L. Word meaning in minds and machines.Psycho- logical review130,401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Grounding distributional semantics in the visual world.Language and Linguistics Compass10,3–13 (2016)

    Baroni, M. Grounding distributional semantics in the visual world.Language and Linguistics Compass10,3–13 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Zador, A.et al.Catalyzing next-generation artificial intelligence through neu- roai.Nature communications14,1597 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    2024.https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/07/09/reasoning-through-arguments- against-taking-ai-safety-seriously/

    Bengio, Y.Reasoning through arguments against taking AI safety seriously. 2024.https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/07/09/reasoning-through-arguments- against-taking-ai-safety-seriously/

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Benevolent artificial anti-natalism (BAAN).EDGE Essay(2017)

    Metzinger, T. Benevolent artificial anti-natalism (BAAN).EDGE Essay(2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Christov-Moore, L.et al.Preventing antisocial robots: A pathway to artificial empathy.Science Robotics8,eabq3658 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    & Franklin, S

    Wallach, W., Allen, C. & Franklin, S. Consciousness and Ethics: Artificially Conscious Moral Agents.International Journal of Machine Consciousness3, 177–192 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Artificial consciousness: the missing ingredient for ethical AI?Fron- tiers in Robotics and AI10,1270460 (2023)

    Chella, A. Artificial consciousness: the missing ingredient for ethical AI?Fron- tiers in Robotics and AI10,1270460 (2023). 80.https://conscium.com/. 81.https://www.robometricsagi.com/blog/ai-policy/artificial-consciousness- as-a-way-to-mitigate-ai-existential-risk

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    & Koch, C

    Crick, F. & Koch, C. A framework for consciousness.Nature neuroscience6, 119–126 (2003)

    work page 2003

  75. [75]

    Rosenthal, D. M. Consciousness and its function.Neuropsychologia46,829–840 (2008)

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    Rosenthal, D.Consciousness and metacognitioninMetarepresentation: Proceed- ings of the tenth Vancouver cognitive science conference(2000), 265–295

    work page 2000

  77. [77]

    Consciousness: the radical plasticity thesis.Progress in brain research168,19–33 (2007)

    Cleeremans, A. Consciousness: the radical plasticity thesis.Progress in brain research168,19–33 (2007)

    work page 2007

  78. [78]

    arXiv:1709.08568 [cs.LG].https: //arxiv.org/abs/1709.08568

    Bengio, Y.The Consciousness Prior2019. arXiv:1709.08568 [cs.LG].https: //arxiv.org/abs/1709.08568

    work page arXiv

  79. [79]

    American Pychologist, 58 (9), 6972003

    Kahneman, D.A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded ratio- nality. American Pychologist, 58 (9), 6972003

    work page

  80. [80]

    N., Baumeister, R

    DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F. & Masicampo, E. Evidence that logical rea- soning depends on conscious processing.Consciousness and Cognition17,628– 645 (2008). 15

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.