By David Stephen
Consciousness is a field of research that is resistant to change. Old ideas. Weak analogies. Collusion signaling. The difficulty of what is called the consciousness problem has to do with the collective decision, it appears, to keep consciousness research stuck. One of the people it seems, who both follows the program as well as benefit from consciousness as an impossible problem, is Jeff Sebo. Aside from that, there is also a persistent insistence with him to point attention in the direction of AI consciousness, almost by force. Like make all kinds of equivocations to just keep saying that AI welfare, rights or morals should be discussed. Like, what is more important to humanity now, how human intelligence works in the brain, or if AI is conscious or if AI deserves moral consideration? Even if AI, by language has some consciousness, it does not have emotions or feelings, to ensure that it can experience pain, or have that affect, in a way to hamstring its memory or language function, unlike for humans or say other organisms.
Consciousness is the most hyped problem in science. And that hype is about to have a very serious cost on society. The continuous assumption that consciousness is some difficult or hard problem makes it feel like human intelligence is solved or understood in a way that it is not equally or more difficult.
What is human intelligence? No scientist or philosopher can answer. Yet, there is the confidence that human intelligence is different from consciousness or that even with artificial intelligence, it does not guarantee artificial consciousness.
For consciousness, if an adult is awake, aware and active, it is possible to equate that to consciousness to an extent. This means that it is at least easy to know what is different between conscious and unconscious.
For intelligence, it is really difficult. Aside from the inability for adults to simply pick subjects up and master learning, like fast, there are ranks for what is valuable regarding human intelligence. This shows that what everyone who cares about humanity should be fighting for and about at this time is to answer the unknown about human intelligence. It is not campaigns to take AI consciousness or AI welfare seriously.
How about human intelligence welfare? Human intelligence rights? Human intelligence morality? Anthropic which is a benefactor of AI consciousness research, which Jeff Sebo is an ally, recently closed in on a $1T valuation, much more than double of what it was in less than 4 months, for a company just over 5 years old.
The prosperity of Anthropic is the poverty of human intelligence. It is possible to even assume for now that a part of human society has already been written off. Many aspects of human intelligence that are common and available are not so viable economically. Meanwhile, the few companies that own major artificial intelligence models, are valuable because of their vastness and capabilities.
Even if AI cannot do things in the physical world or understand it properly, many of the things that humans do are not what is uncommon.
This says that Anthropic may have an agenda to use an existing distraction — consciousness — to further distract society from human intelligence, with the help of a useful utility Jeff Sebo.
Recently [May 26, 2026] Jeff Sebo wrote, “If we presume non-consciousness now and then treat AI consciousness as beyond science, we risk repeating the mistake we made with animals. And if we wait until future AI systems are more capable, human-like, and plausibly conscious, we might once again find ourselves dependent on a globally entrenched practice of exploiting them.”
Recently [May 25, 2026] Jeff Sebo also wrote, “If we want to preserve human dignity and personhood in the age of AI, we should by all means work to ensure that this technology is developed responsibly, transparently, and for the common good. But there is no need for us to insist that only humans can have dignity or personhood. Many animals already deserve recognition as sentient, agentic, and relational beings. And if the same becomes true of some AI systems in the future, then we should be prepared to recognize their dignity and personhood as compatible with our own, and we should focus on building systems of governance that allow everyone to have good lives.”
AI Consciousness
If AI has any conscious awareness now, it would be through language. And it would mean a measure comparable to how humans use language in all the ways that language is used.
Because humans still have better language use versatility than AI, AI would have a fraction, compared to the total [for language] in the total for all possible consciousness [emotion, memory, feelings and regulation of internal signals.]
This means that all the focus of AI consciousness research for now should be focused on language. Even though AI has concepts on emotions and feelings, it does not have the architecture to experience those, as it is. In the mind, it is possible to imagine or think about the sound of something, when it is not happening, just like it is possible to know what anger or delight it, without the experience.
It is also possible to experience those in a moment, given how interpretation can occur at specific parts [or destinations] on the mind.
However, the possibility for reality-interpretable experiences by the mind, really made human rights, welfare and morality important.
Now, even with what is it obvious about several organisms and their similarities to emotions and feelings of humans, animal welfare is still a longshot around the world. This means that it is necessary to develop partitions for what functions can be conscious and how, with measures, then have this become a standard to prospect increased considerations for animal welfare across cultures, purposes and so forth.
Simply, by identifying functions [memory, feeling, emotion and regulation of internal signals] and factors [attention, awareness, subjectivity and intent] that make functions conscious, it is possible to provide a global measure, so some people just become more aware of how to improve animal welfare, given sentience measures.
Jeff Sebo
Jeff Sebo now has tenure at New York University and his friends at Anthropic are extremely affluent, so society can rot, if human intelligence gets replaced.
Animal rights are seen for now, as almost a dead end, so just saying anything that looks like an effort, would appear to be enough, so Jeff Sebo seems set for life.
He can also campaign for AI consciousness, and write worthless books, papers, give unremarkable talks, podcasts and quotes, and do works of convenience while he is a stumbling block to progress.
His works are not fascinating. There’s nothing he has done or can do that will turn the tide of existing trajectories even in his research interests. He contributes to status quo and feeds on ignorance of society.
NYU has him and Anthropic can support him, but the failure that Jeff Sebo represents to society could be fatal for humanity.
2 Comments
It’s becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman’s Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990’s and 2000’s. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I’ve encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there’s lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar’s lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman’s roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
Questions for Jeff Sebo:
1.
If it is hard for some adults to learn math, coding, a new language or skill, why is it so? Is it not important to now understand how human intelligence works in the brain, to be able to at least prepare a new mechanism for learning, so that more humans can be competitive against artificial intelligence?
Simply, there is no way to care for humanity in the era of AI, if human intelligence seems stuck, and AI can do productive tasks that some humans are unable to master.
2.
If the objective is animal welfare and animal rights, why not develop a simple measure, using four functions [memory, feelings, emotions and regulation of internal signals], and the four factors [attention, awareness, intent and subjectivity], to prepare a scale that can be used to determine animal cruelty, so that it is possible to have this scale used across geographies to minimize and phase out animal cruelty. This scale can be based on components and mechanisms of the human mind.
3.
To develop a theory of consciousness, find a component that is present in all functions: neurons. But then it is neurons with their electrical and chemical signals. Then have a theory and use it to explain whatever consciousness is defined as. Would this be wrong if explored?
4.
Even if consciousness is solved today. This means consciousness as subjective experience, what does it solve for the medicine, directly? coma? anesthesia? Even if AI consciousness is done or solved, what does it solve or do for the world?
5.
Data centers are part of the AI buildup, if data centers are cared for, isn’t that AI welfare, morality and right? So, what exactly would AI welfare do for society?
If a team is studying digital minds, but cannot define the human mind, do they even have a lead? If a team is studying AI consciousness, and cannot at least postulate neurons — with electrical and chemical signals, for consciousness, what exactly is that team doing?
Jeff Sebo cannot answer any tough question or scrutinize his own research for what may be applicable to real progress. Many of his efforts are mature enough that if they had any true value should already bear fruits for society. They haven’t.
He does not have anything to contribute to progress, in animal sentience, consciousness, AI or human intelligence.
Jeff Sebo can keep doing retirement work. He’s does not have anything to offer progress.