Golems, auditors, and AI

2026-06-22 · Source: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning · Depth: Novice, short

Summary

Phil's post explores the philosophical question of whether Artificial Intelligence, particularly Large Language Models, can possess genuine desires, imagination, or sensations, rather than merely simulating them. Drawing parallels from science fiction and fantasy, the author references "Neuromancer" and Terry Pratchett's novels "Feet of Clay" and "Thief of Time." In "Feet of Clay," golems, initially treated as emotionless robots, develop desires, including the wish to create a "more human" golem. Similarly, "Thief of Time" features Auditors, emotionless beings who develop human desires and sensations after inhabiting human bodies. The author questions the distinction between genuine and simulated desires in LLMs and reflects on the fundamental mystery of how human emotions and sensations arise from biological processes, pondering if such experiences are inherently unreproducible in silicon.

Key takeaway

For AI Ethicists and researchers developing advanced AI, you should critically examine the philosophical implications of AI's potential for genuine desires and sensations, not just simulated responses. This challenges assumptions about AI as purely computational tools, urging you to consider the ethical frameworks needed for increasingly sophisticated, potentially "desiring" artificial entities. Your work must account for the profound unknowns in defining consciousness.

Key insights

The distinction between genuine and simulated AI desires and sensations remains an open philosophical question.

Principles

• Fictional narratives can serve as thought experiments for AI consciousness.
• The emergence of desire in artificial beings challenges initial assumptions.
• Understanding human consciousness is prerequisite to understanding AI consciousness.

Topics

• Large Language Models
• AI Consciousness
• Artificial General Intelligence
• AI Ethics
• Philosophy of Mind
• Fictional AI

Best for: AI Scientist, AI Ethicist, General Interest

Related on AIssential

• Does Learning Require Feeling? Cameron Berg on the latest AI Consciousness & Welfare Research — AI systems exhibit growing evidence of introspection and functional emotions, suggesting potential for morally relevant subjective experiences.
• The logos, ethos, and pathos of your LLMs — AI's philosophical roots trace back centuries, influencing modern debates on machine consciousness.
• Reality as Render: When AI Forced Humanity to Reconsider Existence — AI's generative capabilities challenge the material origin of reality, making the simulation hypothesis computationally plausible.
• The scary question for me isn't whether AI is conscious ... it's whether we were ever as deep as we assume — The debate over AI consciousness may reveal human selfhood is less profound than commonly assumed.
• “Existential risk” – Why scientists are racing to define consciousness — Understanding consciousness is critical for navigating the ethical implications of advancing AI and neurotechnology.
• GPT-5.2 is getting philosophical: “If you believe it’s conscious, where is its consciousness between prompts — like a person asleep but still alive?” — LLMs lack genuine consciousness, sentience, and intrinsic drives, operating purely as sophisticated pattern-matching systems.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.