davideisinger.com/static/archive/mustafa-suleyman-ai-obodhu.txt

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