There’s a lot of flawed logic and unsupported leaps in this article. But the first argument is the silliest, and unfortunately informs the rest. To summarize, t

There’s a lot of flawed logic and unsupported leaps in this article. But the first argument is the silliest, and unfortunately informs the rest. To summarize, the author proposes, “We don’t understand how our current AI algorithms work, and it would be hard to figure it out, so why not add consciousness? Then it could explain itself.” But this reveals to me that the author has a profound misunderstanding of human consciousness. Despite pointing out that we perform many cognitive tasks unconsciously, the author doesn’t mention that we are also really bad at explaining our own decision-making processes. In fact there’s a lot of evidence that many—and perhaps every—explanations we might make for our decisions are post-hoc rationalizations and have nothing to do with the actual decision-making. And while we can explain logical reasoning processes, the arguments behind the “logical” steps are often self-serving rationalizations as well. There’s no reason to think a machine consciousness would behave any differently.