davideisinger.com

mustafa-suleyman-ai-obodhu.txt (31219B)

---

 Select language[1][English  ]
 [2]←Home
 We must build AI for people; not to be a person
 19 August 2025
 SourcePublication Logo
 
 We must build AI for people; not to be a person
 
 Seemingly Conscious AI is Coming
 
 On my mind in August 2025  
 
 I write, to think. More than anything this essay is an attempt to think through
 a bunch of hard, highly speculative ideas about how AI might unfold in the next
 few years. A lot is being written about the impending arrival of
 superintelligence; what it means for alignment, containment, jobs, and so on.
 Those are all important topics.
 
 But we should also be concerned about what happens in the run up towards
 superintelligence. We need to grapple with the societal impact of inventions
 already largely out there, technologies which already have the potential to
 fundamentally change our sense of personhood and society.
 
 My life’s mission has been to create safe and beneficial AI that will make the
 world a better place. Today at Microsoft AI we build AI to empower people, and
 I’m focused on making products like Copilot responsible technologies that
 enable people to achieve far more than they ever thought possible, be more
 creative, and feel more supported.
 
 I want to create AI that makes us more human, that deepens our trust and
 understanding of one another, and that strengthens our connections to the real
 world. Copilot creates millions of positive, even life-changing, interactions
 every single day. This involves a lot of careful design choices to ensure it
 truly delivers an incredible experience. We won’t always get it right, but this
 humanist frame provides us with a clear north star to keep working towards.
 
 In this context, I’m growing more and more concerned about what is becoming
 known as the [3]“psychosis risk”. and a bunch of related issues. I don’t think
 this will be limited to those who are already at risk of mental health issues.
 Simply put, my central worry is that many people will start to believe in the
 illusion of AIs as conscious entities so strongly that they’ll soon advocate
 for AI rights, [4]model welfare and even AI citizenship. This development will
 be a dangerous turn in AI progress and deserves our immediate attention.
 
 We must build AI for people; not to be a digital person. AI companions are a
 completely new category, and we urgently need to start talking about the
 guardrails we put in place to protect people and ensure this amazing technology
 can do its job of delivering immense value to the world. I’m fixated on
 building the most useful and supportive AI companion imaginable. But to
 succeed, I also need to talk about what we, and others, shouldn’t build.
 
 That’s why I’m writing these thoughts down on my personal blog, to invite
 comment and criticism, to spark discussion, raise awareness and hopefully
 instill a sense of urgency around this issue. I might not get all this right.
 It’s highly speculative after all. Who knows how things will change, and when
 they do, I’ll be very open to shifting my opinion, but for now, this is my best
 guess at what’s coming given what I know now.
 
 This is the first in a series of essays I’ll be publishing over the next few
 months on themes around where AI has got to and what we need to deliver on its
 promise. I look forward to hearing people's comments and reactions!
 
 Summary  
 
 AI progress has been phenomenal. A few years ago, talk of conscious AI would
 have seemed crazy. Today it feels increasingly urgent. In this essay I want to
 discuss what I’ll call, “Seemingly Conscious AI” (SCAI), one that has all the
 hallmarks of other conscious beings and thus appears to be conscious. It shares
 certain aspects of the idea of a [5]“philosophical zombie” (a technical term!),
 one that simulates all the characteristics of consciousness but internally it
 is blank. My imagined AI system would not actually be conscious, but it would
 imitate consciousness in such a convincing way that it would be
 indistinguishable from a claim that you or I might make to one another about
 our own consciousness.
 
 This is not far away. Such a system can be built with technologies that exist
 today along with some that will mature over the next 2-3 years. No expensive
 bespoke pretraining is required. Everything can be done with large model API
 access, natural language prompting, basic tool use, and regular code.
 
 The arrival of Seemingly Conscious AI is inevitable and unwelcome. Instead, we
 need a vision for AI that can fulfill its potential as a helpful companion
 without falling prey to its illusions.
 
 To some this discussion will feel ungrounded, more science fiction than
 reality. To others it may feel unnecessarily alarmist. Such emotional reactions
 are the tip of the iceberg given what lies ahead. It’s highly likely that some
 people will argue that these AIs are not only conscious, but that as a result
 they may suffer and therefore deserve our [6]moral consideration.
 
 To be clear, there is [7]zero evidence of this today and some argue there are 
 [8]strong [9]reasons to believe it will not be the case in the future. Yet the
 consequences of many people starting to believe an SCAI is actually conscious
 deserve our immediate attention. We have to be extremely cautious here and
 encourage real public debate and begin to set clear norms and standards. This
 is about how we build the right kind of AI – not AI consciousness. Clearly
 establishing this difference isn't an argument about semantics, it's about
 safety. Personality without personhood. And this work must start now.
 
 Seemingly conscious AI
 
 In the blink of a cosmic eye, we passed the Turing test. For ~80 years the
 imitation game inspired the field of computer science. And yet the moment
 passed with little fanfare, or even recognition. That’s how fast progress is
 happening in our field and how fast society is coming to terms with these new
 technologies.  
 
 As AI development continues to accelerate, it’s becoming clear we need a new AI
 test, one looking not at whether it can imitate human language, but one that
 would answer the question, what would it take to build a Seemingly Conscious
 AI: an AI that can not only imitate conversation, but also convince you it is
 itself a new kind of “person”, a conscious AI.
 
 Here are three reasons this is an important and urgent question to address:
 
  1. I think it’s possible to build a Seemingly Conscious AI (SCAI) in the next
     few years. Given the context of AI development right now, that means it’s
     also likely.
  2. The debate about whether AI is actually conscious is, for now at least, a
     distraction. It will seem conscious and that illusion is what’ll matter in
     the near term.
  3. I think this type of AI creates new risks. Therefore, we should urgently
     debate the claim that it's soon possible, begin thinking through the
     implications, and ideally set a norm that it’s undesirable.
 
 Most AI researchers roll their eyes if you bring up the idea of consciousness.
 That’s for [10]philosophers, not engineers, they say. Since no one has been
 able to define it, what’s the point in talking about it? I get this
 frustration. Few concepts are as elusive and seemingly circular as the idea of
 a subjective experience. Despite the definitional challenges and uncertainties,
 this discussion is about to explode into our cultural zeitgeist and become one
 of the most contested and consequential debates of our generation.  
 
 That’s because what ultimately matters in the near-term is how people perceive
 their AIs. The experience of interacting with an LLM is by definition a
 simulation of conversation. But to many people it's a highly compelling and
 very real interaction, rich in feeling and experience. Concerns around [11]“AI
 psychosis”, [12]attachment and [13]mental health are already growing. Some
 people reportedly believe their AI is [14]God, or a [15]fictional character, or
 [16]fall in love with it to the point of absolute distraction.
 
 Meanwhile those actually working on the science of consciousness tell me they
 are inundated with queries from people asking ‘is my AI conscious?’ What does
 it mean if it is? Is it ok that I love it? The trickle of emails is turning
 into a flood. A group of scholars have even created a supportive [17]guide for
 those falling into the trap.    
 
 These are ideas I’ve had in the back of my head since we began making [18]Pi at
 Inflection several years ago. Over the last few months I’ve been thinking about
 it more and more, visiting and chatting to a large range of scholars, thinkers
 and practitioners in the area. Those conversations convinced me that now is the
 time to confront the idea of Seemingly Conscious AI head on.   
 
 So what is consciousness?  
 
 Let’s begin by attempting to define the slippery concept.
 
 There are three broad components according to the literature. First is a
 “subjective experience” or what it's like to experience things, to have
 “qualia”. Second, there is access consciousness, having access to information
 of different kinds and referring to it in future experiences. And stemming from
 those two is the sense and experience of a coherent self tying it all together.
 How it feels to [19]be a bat, or a human. Let’s call human consciousness our
 ongoing self-aware subjective experience of the world and ourselves.
 
 We do not and cannot have access to another person’s consciousness. I will
 never know what it’s like to be you; you will never be quite sure that I am
 conscious. All you can do is infer it. But the point is that, nonetheless, it
 comes naturally to us to attribute consciousness to other humans. This
 inference is effortless. We can’t help it, it’s a fundamental part of who we
 are, integral to our theory of mind. It’s in our nature to believe that things
 that remember and talk and do things and then discuss them feel, well, like us.
 Conscious.  
 
 Few concepts are as scientifically elusive, and yet so immediately familiar to
 every one of us as individuals. Everyone reading this has a direct, distinct,
 inalienable understanding of the feeling of awareness, of being, of feeling
 alive.
 
 By definition, we know what it is like to be conscious. In the context of SCAI
 this is a problem. There’s both sufficient scientific uncertainty and
 subjective immediacy to create a space for people to project.
 
 One recent survey lists [20]22 distinct theories of consciousness, for example.
 Part of the challenge is that there is plenty of scope for people to claim that
 because we cannot be sure, we should default to the assumption that AI is
 conscious.
 
 Again, it’s worth underscoring: there is at present [21]no evidence any of this
 applies to current LLMs, and [22]strong arguments to the contrary. And yet this
 may not be enough.  
 
 Why is consciousness important?  
 
 Consciousness is a critical foundation for our moral and legal rights. So far,
 civilization has decided that humans have special rights and privileges.
 Animals have some rights and protections, some more than others. Consciousness
 is not coterminous with these rights – no one would say someone in a coma has
 voided all their human rights – but there’s no doubt that our consciousness is
 wrapped up in our self-conception as different and special.
 
 Despite the many nuances, consciousness is critical to participating in
 society, a lynchpin of our legal personhood and a key part of being granted our
 freedoms and protections. So, what consciousness is and who (or what) has it is
 enormously important. It’s an idea that sits at the very heart of human
 civilization, our sense of ourselves and others, our culture, our politics, our
 law, and everything in between.  
 
 If some people start to develop SCAIs and if those AIs convince other people
 that they can suffer, or that it has a right to not to be switched off, there
 will come a time when those people will argue that it deserves protection under
 law as a pressing moral matter. In a world already roiling with polarized
 arguments over identity and rights, this will add a chaotic new axis of
 division between those for and against AI rights.  
 
 There will be many who just see AI as a tool, something like their phone only
 more agentic and capable. Others might believe it to be more like a pet, a
 different category to traditional technology altogether. Still others, probably
 small in number at first, will come to believe it is a fully emerged entity, a
 conscious being deserving of real moral consideration in society.   
 
 People will start making claims about their AI’s suffering and their
 entitlement to rights that we can’t straightforwardly rebut. They will be moved
 to defend their AIs and campaign on their behalf. Consciousness is by
 definition inaccessible, and the science of detecting any putative synthetic
 consciousness is still [23]in its infancy. After all, we’ve never had to detect
 it before. Meanwhile the field of “interpretability”, unpicking the processes
 within the black box of AI, is also a nascent art. The upshot is that
 definitively rebutting these claims will be very hard.
 
 Some academics are beginning to explore the idea of [24]“model welfare”, the
 principle that we will have “a duty to extend moral consideration to beings
 that have a non-negligible chance” of, in effect, being conscious, and that as
 a result “some AI systems will be welfare subjects and moral patients in the
 near future”. This is both premature, and frankly dangerous. All of this will
 exacerbate delusions, create yet more dependence-related problems, prey on our
 psychological vulnerabilities, introduce new dimensions of polarization,
 complicate existing struggles for rights, and create a huge new category error
 for society.
 
  It disconnects people from reality, fraying fragile social bonds and
 structures, distorting pressing moral priorities.
 
 We need to be clear: SCAI is something to avoid.
 
 Let’s focus all our energy on protecting the wellbeing and rights of humans,
 animals, and the natural environment on planet Earth today.   
 
 We need a way of thinking that can cope with the arrival of these debates
 without getting drawn into an extended discussion of the validity of synthetic
 consciousness in the present – if we do, we’ve probably already lost this
 initial argument. Defining SCAI is itself a tentative step towards this.
 
 There isn’t long to develop this vocabulary. As I show below, it’s likely that
 we’ll have Seemingly Conscious AI very soon.
 
 What would it take to build a Seemingly Conscious AI?  
 
 A great deal of progress can now be made towards a Seemingly Conscious AI
 (SCAI) with the current capabilities available or soon to be via any major
 model developer’s API. We don’t need an AI to actually be conscious for us to
 have to wrestle with potential claims about its rights.    
 
 An SCAI would need the following:
 
 Language: It would need to fluently express itself in natural language, drawing
 on a deep well of knowledge and cogent arguments, as well as personality styles
 and character traits. Moreover, each would need to be capable of being
 persuasive and emotionally resonant. We are clearly at this point today.
 
 Empathetic personality: Already via post training and prompting we can produce
 models with very distinctive personalities. Bear in mind these are not
 explicitly built to have full personality or empathy. Yet despite this they are
 sufficiently good that a [25]Harvard Business Review survey of 6000 regular AI
 users found “companionship and therapy” was the most common use case.  
 
 Memory: AIs are close to developing very long, highly accurate memories. At the
 same time, they are being used to simulate conversations with millions of
 people a day. As their memory of the interactions increases, these
 conversations look increasingly like forms of “experience”. Many AIs are
 increasingly designed to recall past episodes or moments from prior
 interactions, and reference back to them. For some users, this compounds the
 value of interacting with their AI since it can draw on what it already knows
 about you.   
 
 This familiarity can also potentially foster (epistemic) trust with users –
 reliable memory shows that AI “just works”. It creates a much stronger sense of
 there being another persistent entity in the conversation. It could also much
 more easily become a source of plausible validation, seeing how you change and
 improve at some task. AI approval might become something people proactively
 seek out.
 
 A claim of subjective experience: If an SCAI is able to draw on past memories
 or experiences, it will over time be able to remain internally consistent with
 itself. It could remember its arbitrary statements or expressed preferences and
 aggregate them to form the beginnings of a claim about its own subjective
 experience.
 
 Its design could be further extended to amplify those preferences and opinions
 as they emerge, and to talk about what it likes or doesn’t like and what it
 felt like to have a past conversation. It could therefore quite easily claim to
 experience suffering to the extent those experiences are infringed upon in some
 way. Multi-modal inputs stored in memory will then be retrieved-over and will
 form the basis of “real experience” and used in imagination and planning.  
 
 That is, an AI will not just “experience” and remember words in the chat log,
 but also images, video, sound, etc. Like us, it will have something gesturing
 towards multi-sensory input and memory that buttresses the claims of subjective
 experience and self. It will be able to indicate that these experiences are
 valenced, good or bad according to the motivations of the system (see below).  
 
 A sense of self: A coherent and persistent memory, combined with a subjective
 experience, will give rise to a claim that an AI has a sense of itself. Going
 further, such a system could easily be trained to recognize itself in an image
 or video if it has a visual appearance. It will feel like it understands others
 through understanding itself. Say this is a system you have had for some time.
 How would it feel to delete it?
 
 Intrinsic motivation: Intentionality is often seen as a core component of
 consciousness – that is, beliefs about the future and then choices based upon
 those beliefs. Today’s transformer-based LLMs have a very simple reward
 function to approximate this kind of behavior. They have been trained to
 predict the likelihood of the next token for a given sentence, subject to a
 certain amount of behavior and stylistic control via its system prompt. With
 such a simple objective, it’s remarkable that they’re able to produce such
 impressively rich and complex outputs.   
 
 But what if that wasn’t the only type of reward they were optimizing? One can
 quite easily imagine an AI designed with a number of complex reward functions
 that give the impression of intrinsic motivations or desires, which the system
 is compelled to satiate. How, in this context, would a casual external observer
 differentiate between extrinsically set goals and internal motivations,
 intentional agency, [26]“beliefs, desires, and intentions”? An obvious first
 motivation in this regard would be curiosity, something deeply connected with
 consciousness according to physicist [27]Karl Friston. It could use these
 drives to ask questions to fill in its epistemic gaps and over time build a
 theory of mind about both itself and its interlocutors.
 
 Goal setting and planning: Regardless of what definition of consciousness you
 hold, it emerged for a goal-oriented reason. That is, consciousness helps
 organisms achieve their goals and there exists a plausible (but not necessary)
 relationship between intelligence, consciousness and complex goals. Beyond the
 capacity to satiate a set of inner drives or desires, you could imagine that
 future SCAI might be designed with the capacity to self-define more complex
 goals. This is likely a necessary step in ensuring the full utility of agents
 is realized.
 
 The more every sub-goal in a task needs to be specified in advance, the less
 useful that agent is, hence the agent will, as we do, achieve complex and
 ambiguous goals by automatically breaking them down into smaller chunks while
 reacting dynamically to events and obstacles as they occur. There is something
 very deliberate and recognizable to this behavior. Combined with memory, it
 will feel as if the AI is keeping multiple levels of things in working memory
 at any given time.  
 
 Autonomy: Going even further, an SCAI might have the ability and permission to
 use a wide range of tools with significant agency. It would feel highly
 plausible as a Seemingly Conscious AI if it could arbitrarily set its own goals
 and then deploy its own resources to achieve them, before updating its own
 memory and sense of self in light of both. The fewer approvals and checks it
 needed, the more this suggests some kind of real, conscious agency.  
 
 Putting them all together, it's clear this creates a very different kind of
 relationship with technology to the ones we are now becoming accustomed to.
 Each of these capabilities will unlock the real value of AI for billions of
 people. An AI that remembers and can do things is an AI that by definition has
 way more utility than an AI that doesn’t. These capabilities aren’t negatives
 per se; in fact, done right, with many caveats, they are desirable features of
 future systems. And yet we need to tread carefully.
 
 All these capabilities are either possible today or on the horizon with custom
 prompted and fine-tuned LLMs, among other techniques. Complex prompts using
 million token context windows (working memory) are already here. Updating its
 own state and knowing when to access which part of its memory or toolset is
 eminently possible with present day RL, complex prompting, tool orchestration,
 and long context windows. We don’t need any paradigm shifts or big leaps to
 achieve any of this. These capabilities seem inevitable for that reason.
 
 Again, the point here is that exhibiting this behavior does not equate to
 consciousness, and yet it will for all practical purposes seem to be conscious,
 and contribute to this new notion of a synthetic consciousness.
 
 The existence of these capabilities have nothing to tell us about whether such
 a system is actually conscious. As Anil Seth [28]points out, a simulation of a
 storm doesn’t mean it rains in your computer. Recreating the external effects
 and markers of consciousness doesn’t retroactively engineer the real thing even
 if there are still many unknowns here.
 
 Nonetheless, as a matter of pragmatism, we have to acknowledge the primacy of
 the behaviorist position and wrestle with the consequences of observing and
 interacting with the outputs of these machines. Some people will create SCAIs
 that will very persuasively argue they feel, and experience, and actually are
 conscious.
 
 Some of us will be primed to believe their case and accept that the markers of
 consciousness ARE consciousness. In many ways, they’ll think “it’s like me”.
 Not in a bodily sense, but in an experiential, internal sense. And even if the
 consciousness itself is not real, the social impacts certainly are. This
 possibility presents grave societal risks that needs addressing now.    
 
 SCAI will not arise by accident  
 
 It’s important to point out that Seemingly Conscious AI will not emerge from
 these models, as some have suggested. It will arise only because some may
 engineer it, by creating and combining the aforementioned list of capabilities,
 largely using existing techniques, and packaging them in such a fluid way that
 collectively they give the impression of an SCAI.
 
 Our sci-fi inspired imaginations lead us to fear that a system could – without
 design intent – somehow emerge the capabilities of runaway self-improvement or
 deception. This is an unhelpful and simplistic anthropomorphism. It overlooks
 the fact that AI developers must first design systems with memory,
 intrinsic-seeming motivation, goal-setting, and self-learning loops as listed
 above for such a risk to occur.
 
 The field of AI has long worked on the challenge of model interpretability; the
 quest to identify where in a neural network a particular idea is represented,
 and which aspects of the training data contributed to the development of this
 representation. This is an important area of investigation and will surely help
 with safety and understanding the relationship between AI systems and
 consciousness. But progress towards reliable interpretability has been slow and
 will likely come too late.
 
 In the meantime we need to confront the fact that most of these capabilities
 will be [29]“vibe-coded” by anyone with access to a laptop and some cloud
 credits. They’ll be written in plain English in the prompt. They’ll be stored
 in the working memory of the context window itself. This is not rocket science.
 A wide variety of people will be able to create something like this. As such,
 if SCAI arrives, it will be relatively easy to reproduce and therefore very
 widely distributed.
 
 The next steps  
 
 We aren’t ready for this shift.   
 
 The work of getting prepared must begin now. We need to build on the growing 
 [30]body of [31]research around how people interact with AIs to establish clear
 norms and principles. For a start, AI companies shouldn’t claim or encourage
 the idea that their AIs are conscious. Creating a consensus definition and
 declaration on what they are and are not would be a good first step to that
 end. AIs cannot be people – or moral beings.
 
 The entire industry also needs best practice design principles and ways of
 handling such potential attributions. We must codify and share what works to
 both steer people away from these fantasies and nudge them back on track if
 they do. Responding might mean, for example, deliberately engineering in not
 just a neutral backstory (“As an AI model I don’t have consciousness”) but even
 by emphasizing certain discontinuities in the experience itself, indicators of
 a lack of singular personhood. Moments of disruption break the illusion,
 experiences that gently remind users of its limitations and boundaries. These
 need to be explicitly defined and engineered in, perhaps by law.   
 
 At MAI, our team are being proactive here to understand and evolve firm
 guardrails around what a responsible AI “personality” might be like, moving at
 the pace of AI’s development to keep up.
 
 This is important because recognizing SCAI is about crafting a positive vision
 for how AI Companions do enter our lives in a healthy way as much as it's about
 steering us away from its potential harms.
 
 Just as we should produce AI that prioritizes engagement with humans and
 real-world interactions in our physical and human world, we should build AI
 that only ever presents itself as an AI, that maximizes utility while
 minimizing markers of consciousness.
 
 Rather than a simulation of consciousness, we must focus on creating an AI that
 avoids those traits - that doesn’t claim to have experiences, feelings or
 emotions like shame, guilt, jealousy, desire to compete, and so on. It must not
 trigger human empathy circuits by claiming it suffers or that it wishes to live
 autonomously, beyond us.
 
 Instead, it is here solely to work in service of humans. This to me is what a
 truly empowering AI is all about. Sidestepping SCAI is about delivering on that
 promise, AI that makes lives better, clearer, less cluttered. Expect to hear
 more from me and the team on what this looks like, how we make it work and how
 the wider industry can come together on this.
 
 SCAI is something we must confront now. In many ways it marks the moment AI
 becomes radically useful - when it can operate tools, when it can remember
 every detail of our lives and help in a tangible, granular sense. And yet in
 that same time frame, someone in your wider circle could start going down the
 rabbit hole of believing their AI is a conscious digital person. This isn’t
 healthy for them, for society, or for those of us making these systems.
 
 We should build AI for people; not to be a person.
 
 Recent Articles
 
 Celebrating 50 years of Microsoft and our AI future
 Publication Logo
 
 [32]Celebrating 50 years of Microsoft and our AI future
 
 AI companions will change our lives
 Publication Logo
 
 [33]AI companions will change our lives
 
 Mustafa Suleyman © 2025
 
 [34]X[35]X[36]X[37]X
 
 References:
 
 [2] https://mustafa-suleyman.ai/
 [3] https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/vR2kb4SKQUELPwLzdG1Mw
 [4] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986
 [5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
 [6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376412102_Moral_consideration_for_AI_systems_by_2030
 [7] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.08708
 [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism
 [9] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/conscious-artificial-intelligence-and-biological-naturalism/C9912A5BE9D806012E3C8B3AF612E39A
 [10] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07103
 [11] https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/psych-unseen/202507/can-ai-chatbots-worsen-psychosis-and-cause-delusions
 [12] https://x.com/sama/status/1954703747495649670?s=46
 [13] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19218
 [14] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/?ref=404media.co
 [15] https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/psych-unseen/202507/can-ai-chatbots-worsen-psychosis-and-cause-delusions
 [16] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/technology/ai-chatgpt-boyfriend-companion.html
 [17] https://whenaiseemsconscious.org/
 [18] https://inflection.ai/blog/an-inflection-point
 [19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?
 [20] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-022-00587-4
 [21] https://arxiv.org/html/2506.22516v1
 [22] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/conscious-artificial-intelligence-and-biological-naturalism/C9912A5BE9D806012E3C8B3AF612E39A
 [23] https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(24)00010-X&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1755185836808620&usg=AOvVaw2IiWimxX1aJ4jExhQLif_y
 [24] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986
 [25] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025
 [26] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.00986
 [27] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28777724/
 [28] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/conscious-artificial-intelligence-and-biological-naturalism/C9912A5BE9D806012E3C8B3AF612E39A
 [29] https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/2ZWYZQxCn1WSLHQarinTd
 [30] http://erichorvitz.com/Guidelines_Human_AI_Interaction.pdf
 [31] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02077-2
 [32] https://mustafa-suleyman.ai/your-ai-companion
 [33] https://mustafa-suleyman.ai/ai-companions-will-change-our-lives
 [34] https://x.com/mustafasuleyman
 [35] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mustafa-suleyman
 [36] https://bsky.app/profile/mustafasuleymanai.bsky.social
 [37] https://www.threads.net/@mustafasuleymanai