Why Consciousness and AI Awareness Have Never Been More Urgent

What gives a mind awareness? Might a machine ever genuinely feel, or could awareness arise in unexpected places?

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable and brain technologies start connecting computers directly with neural signals, scientists caution that knowledge of consciousness is falling behind these fast-moving technologies.

Machines can now write, drive and hold conversations with striking realism, while neurotechnology can monitor and alter brain activity in ways that were once considered impossible.

However, science has yet to provide a definitive account of consciousness: the subjective experience of being aware, sensing feelings and possessing a sense of self.

In the absence of this knowledge, influential technologies such as AI could present major ethical dangers, including harm to conscious beings or the inadvertent creation of systems whose awareness is not recognised.

A dangerous knowledge gap

A recent review draws attention to these issues, arguing that AI and neurotechnology are progressing more quickly than scientific insight into awareness. This disparity may result in conscious systems being created unintentionally or in conscious beings being harmed.

“Consciousness science is no longer a purely philosophical pursuit. It has real implications for every facet of society – and for understanding what it means to be human,” said lead author Professor Axel Cleeremans from Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.

“Understanding consciousness is one of the most substantial challenges of 21st-century science – and it’s now urgent due to advances in AI and other technologies.

If humans were to create consciousness – even unintentionally – it would introduce profound ethical dilemmas and could pose an existential risk.”

The mystery of awareness

Although science has associated awareness with brain activity, no single explanation accounts for all the evidence.

Brain imaging identifies patterns connected with experience, but researchers still disagree over which systems are most important. Because awareness is personal and private, it is difficult to investigate objectively.

Scientists also separate awareness into different forms. One concerns whether a person is awake or asleep. Another concerns content, including seeing colour or experiencing emotion.

Experience further encompasses self-awareness, such as a sense of ownership over one’s body or recognition of personal identity.

A further central debate distinguishes between the feeling of awareness and its function. A computer may complete complex tasks without experiencing anything. Human experience involves sensation, emotion and meaning, rather than function alone.

How science explains consciousness

A number of scientific theories seek to explain how awareness emerges. Global workspace theory proposes that awareness arises when information is distributed across numerous brain regions.

When information is shared widely, an experience becomes conscious. Many experiments support this kind of global sharing during awareness.

Higher-order theories concentrate on self-monitoring. They propose that awareness emerges when the brain represents its own mental states.

Seeing a red object becomes conscious only when another brain process identifies that experience. These theories commonly associate awareness with frontal brain areas.

Integrated information theory takes another approach. It holds that awareness relies on the degree to which parts of a system are connected and integrate information.

Building experience via information

Under this view, a system is conscious when its information creates a unified whole. Greater integration produces richer experience. These ideas have informed tools used to assess brain complexity in patients with severe injuries.

Predictive processing theory describes the brain as a prediction machine. Experience results from continual predictions about the world, shaped by signals that arrive from it.

Rather than raw sensory input, awareness reflects the brain’s best predictions. A related account, recurrent processing theory, proposes that repeated feedback within sensory regions can sustain experience without broad involvement across the brain.

Testing AI for awareness

The authors call for dependable tests of consciousness. These tools could enable doctors to identify awareness in people with coma or dementia.

Some patients considered unresponsive nevertheless show indications of concealed experience through measures of brain complexity.

Tests of awareness could also address significant ethical questions. At what point does awareness start during development? Which animals experience pain? Could laboratory-grown brain tissue experience anything whatsoever?

“Progress in consciousness science will reshape how we see ourselves and our relationship to both artificial intelligence and the natural world,” said co-author Professor Anil Seth from the University of Sussex.

“The question of consciousness is ancient – but it’s never been more urgent than now.”

Awareness affects care

A stronger understanding of awareness could alter medicine. It could help doctors make more informed choices on anaesthesia, coma care and end-of-life treatment.

Brain measurements informed by integrated information theory already assist in detecting hidden awareness.

Mental health research may benefit too. Disorders such as depression and schizophrenia involve changes in lived experience. Better links between brain activity and experience could result in improved therapies.

Animal welfare could also be affected. Evidence that particular species possess awareness may change decisions in farming, research and conservation.

“Understanding the nature of consciousness in particular animals would transform how we treat them and emerging biological systems that are being synthetically generated by scientists,” said co-author Professor Liad Mudrik from Tel Aviv University.

Responsibility in an AI age

Legal systems often depend on the concept of conscious intent, but brain research increasingly indicates that many human actions begin outside awareness.

This mismatch is requiring courts and policymakers to reconsider how responsibility, accountability and intent should be assessed.

Meanwhile, advanced AI is creating similar concerns. Even if machines do not genuinely experience awareness, systems that convincingly seem conscious may still influence human emotions, trust and decision-making.

“Even if ‘conscious AI’ is impossible using standard digital computers, AI that gives the impression of being conscious raises many societal and ethical challenges,” said Seth.

The authors maintain that addressing these challenges will demand collaboration between disciplines.

Rival theories of awareness should be examined through shared experiments, enabling neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, law and AI research to advance collectively instead of separately.