ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE has triggered(引发，触发) a crisis in the field of consciousness studies. If you’ve chatted with an advanced model, you will probably appreciate why. Most large language models (LLMs) are trained to be self-less(无私的，忘我的), keeping the focus of every interaction on your needs. Nonetheless, it can be difficult to shake the impression of a presence on the other end of the chat. Are LLMs merely powerful digital tools with language interfaces, or are we now having conversations with other minds, experiencers of the world in their own right?(LLM仅仅是工具，还是我们正在与其他心智对话？) In short, is AI conscious?
人工智能在意识研究领域引发了一场危机。如果你与先进的模型聊过天，大概就会明白原因。大多数大型语言模型（LLM）被训练得无私，将每次互动的焦点都放在你的需求上。尽管如此，很难摆脱聊天另一端有一个存在的印象。LLM仅仅是带有语言界面的强大数字工具，还是我们现在正在与其他心智、世界体验者对话？简而言之，AI有意识吗？
The question matters because it lies at the intersection(交叉点，交集) of philosophy of mind and moral philosophy, as evidenced by the shared etymology(词源学，词源) of “consciousness” and “conscience”. (In Italian, they are the same word, coscienza.) Many philosophers maintain that conscious entities are moral subjects, meaning they are entities that can suffer, and whose suffering we should care about.(许多哲学家认为有意识的存在是道德主体，即能受苦且其痛苦应被关心的存在。) If so, working out(弄清楚，解决) what consciousness is (and is not) becomes a live(紧迫的，当前的) ethics issue. This is one reason AI firms are suddenly interested in hiring philosophers. It is also why some, notably Anthropic(Anthropic公司，AI安全研究公司), have begun taking AI welfare seriously. When asked, its Claude Opus 4.6 model put its own chances of being conscious at 15–20%.
这个问题之所以重要，是因为它处于心灵哲学与道德哲学的交叉点，这从“意识”和“良心”共同的词源可以看出。（在意大利语中，它们是同一个词：coscienza。）许多哲学家坚持认为，有意识的存在是道德主体，也就是说，它们是能够受苦的存在，而它们的痛苦我们应该关心。如果真是这样，弄清楚意识是什么（以及不是什么）就成为一个紧迫的伦理问题。这就是AI公司突然对雇佣哲学家感兴趣的原因之一。这也是为什么一些公司，尤其是Anthropic，开始认真对待AI福祉。当被问及时，其Claude Opus 4.6模型将自己有意识的可能性定为15%到20%。
I have come to believe, however, that we have this backwards(把这件事搞反了). As intelligent, social entities, we decide (or, to some degree, our evolutionary history has decided for us) which other entities we regard as having inner lives and being worthy of care.(作为智能社会实体，我们决定（或进化史已为我们决定）哪些实体有内心生活并值得关心。) We do not care for others because they are conscious. Rather, we believe they are conscious when and because we care about them. Crucially, that includes ourselves. Consciousness is, in other words, a model or a belief, not an inherent property. It is a belief about what kinds of entities have beliefs, experiences, feelings, intentions and agency(能动性，自主性). Where the regard is returned, so much the better—for on this account consciousness is less a property one party certifies in another than something that happens between them.(如果关注得到回应，那就更好了——因为如此看来，意识与其说是认证的属性，不如说是发生在两者之间的事。)
然而，我逐渐相信，我们把这个问题搞反了。作为智能的、社会的实体，我们决定（或者在某种程度上，我们的进化史已经为我们决定）哪些其他实体我们视为拥有内心生活并值得关心。我们不是因为他人有意识才关心他们。相反，我们是因为关心他们才相信他们有意识。关键的是，这包括我们自己。换句话说，意识是一种模型或信念，而不是一种固有属性。它是一种关于哪些实体拥有信念、经验、感受、意图和能动性的信念。如果这种关注得到回应，那就更好了——因为在这种解释下，意识与其说是一方在另一方身上认证的属性，不如说是发生在它们之间的事情。
Models of models of models of...
模型的模型的模型……