Skip to content
Open access

Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent?

Jul 2026 · Minds and Machines · Vol 36 · 0 citations · 78 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

A conceptual analysis of consciousness attributions to AI chatbots is offered and a multidimensional taxonomy of the attitudes they may express is developed, ranging from non-doxastic stances (e.g., pretence) to different forms of belief, including delusions.

Abstract

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 literal expressions of 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.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review Open access Aug 2026

The understanding gap: when functionality looks like understanding

An understanding gap is illuminated: user attributions are partly guided by epistemic orientation and experiential ascriptions that make sophisticated simulation appear as understanding, especially in affective interaction, raising urgent questions about epistemic trust, relational vulnerability, and the ethics of AI c...

Erez Firt, Rinat B. Rosenberg-Kima · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Figurative discourse about AI: A Combined Input Hypothesis analysis

The study demonstrates the explanatory value of the Combined Input Hypothesis for understanding how metonymy profiling and metaphorical projection jointly structure figurative discourse about AI.

Ghsoon Reda · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Philosophical vertigo with artificial intelligence

It is argued that AI systems themselves will increasingly participate in the reconstruction of the authors' shared epistemic environment because they readily supply narrative material and personalised interpretive scaffolding at precisely the moment when users'conceptual assumptions may already be loosened.

T. Pollak, H. Morrin, Murray Shanahan · 0 citations
#generative ai Open access Sep 2026

Can Artificial Intelligence be Socratic?

It is argued that SI construct gives the philosophy of AI a normative vocabulary that interfaces classical philosophy with current machine-learning practice.

Aistė Diržytė, Aleksandras Patapas · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.