> Experts largely agree that current forms of AI are not conscious, in any sense of the word. While there have been many studies on “computational consciousness

> Experts largely agree that current forms of AI are not conscious, in any sense of the word. While there have been many studies on “computational consciousness,” or how something that might be considered conscious can be realized with computers, these studies are very preliminary and do not offer anything close to a concrete plan on building “conscious” machines. The reality is that we don’t have a widely accepted definition, let alone understanding, of consciousness. Claiming that we have already replicated such a nebulous concept with computers seems improbable at best. Granted, the claim could also be reasonable, if a particular definition of consciousness was specified as well. is the last sentence of this paragraph not a direct contradiction of the first? and look at the third sentence. what’s wrong with saying “we don’t understand enough about consciousness to make claims in either direction when it comes to our neural networks”? really: why do so many people in this article seem uncomfortable with other people saying as much? is it just the PR angle? is this field really less about answering the interesting questions than it is about satisfying the public?