CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-22

Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent?

Uwe Peters

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT) can communicate in strikingly humanlike ways. This has prompted many chatbot users to attribute psychological properties, including consciousness, to these systems. However, there is little scientific evidence that current AI chatbots are conscious. How, then, should we understand people's consciousness attributions to chatbots? Are they merely metaphorical claims, or do they express genuine beliefs? If these attributions lack evidential support, are users epistemically blameworthy for making them, or might they be epistemically innocent, yielding significant benefits otherwise unattainable? This paper offers a conceptual analysis of consciousness attributions to AI chatbots and develops a multidimensional taxonomy of the attitudes they may express, ranging from non-doxastic stances (e.g., pretence) to different forms of belief, including delusions. This taxonomy helps avoid conflations by showing that linguistically identical attributions can reflect importantly different attitudes and degrees of epistemic commitment to the proposition that chatbots are conscious. The taxonomy also provides a framework for empirical studies to operationalize and measure different forms of epistemic commitment to AI consciousness. Using this taxonomy, I argue that although some consciousness attributions to chatbots are epistemically benign, and even some irrational ones may be epistemically innocent, many others render the attributor epistemically blameworthy.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-06

Beyond Accuracy: How Humans Evaluate Legally Correct but Socially Controversial Legal Advice from Machines

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Zhiyu Li

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainlan…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-07

Agents That Teach: Towards Designing Incidental Learning Back into AI-Assisted Software Development

Rohit Mehra, Samdyuti Suri, Prithviraj K Tagadinamani, Kapil Singi, Vikrant Kaulgud, Adam P. Burden

AI coding agents are rapidly reshaping how software is built, with developers increasingly delegating substantial coding tasks to autonomous agents in pursuit of higher productivity. While these gains are real, they come at the cost of incidental learning. Developers historically…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-21

The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rathe…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-20

The Autonomous Agency Scale: A Behavioral Framework for Measuring Self-Directed Behavior in AI Systems

Samuel Presgraves

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive,…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-15

AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized

Chiara Marcoccia, Walter Quattrociocchi, Valerio Capraro

Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question. In five experiments (N = 3,132; four preregistered, one direct replication), participants answered difficult questions and could always decline to…

View free PDFSource page