AI是否有意识？目前科学证据不足，应保持存疑。
Agnosticism About Artificial Consciousness
- 基于科学证据而非直觉，主张对人工意识持存疑态度
- 现有研究无法证实或否定AI具备意识体验
- 适合关注意识本质与AI伦理的读者
人工智能是否具有主观体验？任何回答都应遵循证据主义原则——即基于确凿的科学证据，而非直觉、教条或推测。本文认为，相关证据难以获得，因此对人工意识前景最合理的立场是存疑。当前争论主要分为生物派（怀疑人工意识）和功能派（倾向认可），但两者均高估了现有证据所能支持的结论。科学研究中关于意识的认知来自对有意识生物的研究，尽管这使我们能谨慎评估其他生物的意识状态，但将其扩展至人工智能面临严重障碍。因此，意识研究者面临两难：要么对人工意识下结论却违背证据主义；要么尊重证据主义但不作判断。文献主流选择前者，却宣称遵循科学证据。本文主张，若真正遵循证据，应选择后者，采纳存疑立场。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Could an AI have conscious experiences? Any answer to this question should conform to Evidentialism - that is, it should be based not on intuition, dogma or speculation but on solid scientific evidence. I argue that such evidence is hard to come by and that the only justifiable stance on the prospects of artificial consciousness is agnosticism. In the current debate, the main division is between biological views that are sceptical of artificial consciousness and functional views that are sympathetic to it. I argue that both camps make the same mistake of over-estimating what the evidence tells us. Scientific insights into consciousness have been achieved through the study of conscious organisms. Although this has enabled cautious assessments of consciousness in various creatures, extending this to AI faces serious obstacles. AI thus presents consciousness researchers with a dilemma: either reach a verdict on artificial consciousness but violate Evidentialism; or respect Evidentialism but offer no verdict on the prospects of artificial consciousness. The dominant trend in the literature has been to take the first option while purporting to follow the scientific evidence. I argue that if we truly follow the evidence, we must take the second option and adopt agnosticism.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。