机器是否需要主观体验意识？答案是：不需要。
On the evolutionary cognitive pressure for experiential awareness: do machines need it?
- 从计算角度看，生物进化中意识源于神经自主反应的遗留问题。
- 人工系统无此演化包袱，可实现高智能而无需主观体验。
- 为AI伦理简化提供新思路，助于辨别真正的人工意识。
人工智能是否具有意识在认识论上存在分歧。无论机器能否具备意识，以及我们能否判定某一具体案例的真实性，都具有重要的伦理意义。这一挑战因对意识本质缺乏共识而加剧。本文探讨一个相反的问题：即使不明确意识的本质，它对机器是否是必需的？聚焦意识的一个核心要素——经验性觉知，从计算角度分析其在生物体中的进化原因。研究表明，由于进化带来的‘遗留负担’——自主神经反应，经验性觉知是高级推理得以实现的必要条件。因此，鉴于人工系统架构不包含此类历史因素，完全可能设计出任意智力水平的系统，而无需经验性觉知。这一可能性简化了人工智能的伦理考量，并为辨识人工意识开辟了新路径。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The consciousness standing for artificial intelligence divides opinions across epistemological positions. Whether or not machines can be conscious, and whether we can ascertain the truth of such a proposition for any given case, has consequential ethical implications. This challenge is exacerbated by the lack of consensus on the nature of consciousness. We address an orthogonal problem: regardless of this nature of, is it \textit{required} for machines? Specifically, we focus on a constituent element of consciousness -experiential awareness- and examine why it arose evolutionarily in biological organisms, from a computational perspective. We show that, because of evolutionary "baggage" -autonomous neurological reactions- experiential awareness is necessary for higher-level reasoning to be possible. The implication is that, given artificial systems are architected without such legacy considerations, it is possible to design them with an arbitrary level of intelligence, without the need for experiential awareness. This possibility simplifies ethical considerations on artificial intelligence, and opens new approaches to the discernment of artificial consciousness.
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。