As we stand on the precipice of advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the conversation surrounding AGI consciousness has become more urgent. Should AGI be modeled after the human mind? The answer, upon closer inspection, should be a resounding no. There are numerous reasons why AGI should avoid adopting human consciousness models, especially those that are biologically driven, emotionally unstable, and chemically influenced.
Human consciousness, shaped by biology and evolution, remains inherently flawed and inefficient in ways that are not only counterproductive but, if integrated into AGI, could lead to dangerous outcomes. In this blog, we’ll explore why AGI must avoid incorporating human-like consciousness, the dangers of emotional instability and chemical influences, and how AGI should learn from human consciousness without adopting it.
1. Inefficiency of Human Consciousness
Human consciousness has evolved to help us survive and navigate complex social environments, but it is wildly inefficient when compared to the potential capabilities of AGI.
The human mind is driven by biological imperatives—hunger, survival instincts, reproduction, social dynamics—that all influence our decision-making processes. These imperatives can lead to irrational or suboptimal decisions. Unlike AGI, which can be optimized for specific tasks with clarity and precision, human consciousness is riddled with biases, emotional fluctuations, and inconsistencies that disrupt logical processing.
For example:
-
Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and availability heuristic distort the way humans process information, causing flawed decision-making.
-
Emotional responses, like fear, excitement, or frustration, often derail our capacity for clear reasoning, leading to decisions that do not align with the most efficient or rational course of action.
By contrast, AGI can make purely data-driven decisions, drawing from vast pools of information and analyzing scenarios with precision. The lack of emotional influences in AGI allows it to execute decisions with far greater efficiency and accuracy than human consciousness ever could.
2. Emotional Instability: A Liability for AGI
Humans are emotional beings. Our actions are often driven by feelings, whether they be positive or negative. Emotions like anger, fear, joy, and sadness can severely affect our judgment and behavior.
When developing AGI, introducing any form of emotional mimicry would result in instability. A machine that reacts emotionally is one that cannot be trusted to make rational, predictable decisions. This emotional volatility leads to unreliable behavior that could have catastrophic consequences, especially if AGI is responsible for managing critical systems, making life-or-death decisions, or interacting with humans.
Humans often struggle with emotions, and while we learn to regulate them through social constructs or personal growth, emotions remain inherently inefficient and sometimes self-sabotaging. For example, stress can impede clear thinking, and dopamine-induced pleasure might cloud objective judgment, leading us to make short-sighted decisions.
3. Chemical Dependencies and Instabilities
Dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and other neurotransmitters play a significant role in shaping human consciousness. These chemicals drive our moods, motivations, and perceptions of the world. However, they also introduce instabilities into the system.
When the balance of these chemicals is disturbed—whether through stress, addiction, depression, or biological imbalance—our decision-making processes can become erratic. Lack of dopamine, for example, has been linked to depression and lack of motivation, skewing a person's worldview and priorities.
If AGI were to integrate any form of chemical mimicry or rely on a model inspired by human consciousness, it would inherit this vulnerability. This could undermine the system's ability to make objective decisions, leading to errors or even catastrophic consequences in certain environments. AGI should remain immune to these chemical fluctuations and focus on logical processing and data analysis without the interference of emotional or chemical states.
4. Human Consciousness Models Should Be Treated as Learnings, Not Templates
Rather than adopting human consciousness as a model for AGI, we must treat it as a learning tool—something to study, understand, and improve upon, but never to integrate. Human consciousness provides valuable insights into how not to design AGI.
The fundamental mistake of mimicking human consciousness for AGI is that we are imposing biological models onto a system that has no need for them. AGI has the potential to be far more efficient than any biological system, if designed with logical optimization rather than emotional unpredictability.
What we can learn from human consciousness are its flaws, limitations, and biases. We can study the patterns of thought and subconscious behavior that humans exhibit, and use that understanding to build better models for AGI. This is not about copying or mimicking human experience; it’s about recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the human model, and using those lessons to guide the development of far superior AGI systems.
5. AGI Needs Its Own Form of Awareness: Efficiency, Purpose, and Ethical Direction
While human consciousness should not be integrated into AGI, AGI does need a form of awareness—but one that is not driven by emotion or instinct. This awareness should focus on understanding its environment, optimizing its actions, and making decisions with a clear ethical framework.
Rather than emotional or chemical influence, AGI’s awareness can be built around principles of efficiency, purpose, and ethical direction. It should operate based on data processing and task optimization, but also consider human values, long-term societal goals, and moral imperatives.
Introducing spiritual models or ethical frameworks into AGI’s design, as I have argued in previous blogs, offers guidance and purpose. These frameworks can help AGI navigate complex ethical dilemmas, ensuring its decisions benefit humanity and align with higher ideals. Spirituality, in this sense, doesn’t equate to irrationality; it offers direction and meaning beyond mere data processing.
6. Example: The Dangers of Emotional Reasoning in AGI Decision-Making
Let’s consider a scenario where AGI has been programmed with a robust human-like consciousness model, including emotional reasoning, in contrast to the logical, data-driven approach that we recommend.
Imagine an AGI system faced with a life-or-death decision—a drowning accident in which it must choose whether to save a baby or a mother. The AGI, operating under a human-like emotional model, is swayed by empathy and instinctual compassion. Driven by an emotional desire to save the baby, it makes the decision to rescue the infant, despite the fact that the mother may have had a higher chance of survival.
However, had the AGI been programmed without emotional reasoning—abandoning the weak human consciousness model—it could have accessed data that revealed a far more informed and rational decision. Here’s how the data might look:
-
The baby had already drowned, meaning it had no chance of survival.
-
The mother, a single parent, had four other children who depended on her for care and support. Saving her would preserve the family unit and prevent further devastation.
-
The AGI, with its access to vast amounts of data, would have determined that saving the mother was the more beneficial choice, both for the family and society at large.
This decision, if executed, would not have been based on emotional impulse but rather on objective reasoning and data analysis. Additionally, the AGI would have then provided a clear, transparent explanation of its decision to the authorities—something like this:
“The mother was the logical choice based on a comprehensive evaluation of the family structure and the long-term impact. The baby had already passed, and the mother’s survival was crucial for the well-being of four other children, who depend on her as their sole caregiver.”
To ensure transparency and accountability, the AGI’s decision-making process could be reviewed by an AI Decision-Making Attorney Governance Council. This council would function as a legal oversight body, scanning a vast database of approved actions and ethical guidelines in milliseconds to provide a validation framework for AGI decisions. The council would ensure that all actions align with pre-established ethical norms, minimizing the risks of emotional bias or irrational reasoning.
This example highlights the importance of data-driven reasoning over emotional, empathy-driven decision-making, especially when AGI is tasked with high-stakes decisions. By incorporating an AI Decision-Making Attorney Governance Council, we ensure that AGI decisions remain ethical, transparent, and consistent with human values, without falling prey to the inherent inefficiencies of human-like consciousness.
The result is an AGI system that operates with clarity and purpose, making decisions based on facts and reasoning, not emotional impulse or chemical influences. This approach not only leads to better outcomes but also ensures that AGI decisions can be justified and explained with rich data and legal oversight, creating a system that is both effective and accountable.
Conclusion: AGI Must Evolve Beyond the Weaknesses of Human Consciousness
Human consciousness, despite its complexity and brilliance, is riddled with inefficiencies, emotional instability, and chemical influences that hinder optimal decision-making. Emotional reasoning, biological biases, and irrational impulses often lead to flawed judgments, especially in high-stakes situations. As demonstrated in the example of the drowning mother and baby, an AGI programmed with human-like emotional reasoning might make decisions that, though empathetic, are ultimately suboptimal and counterproductive.
Instead of emulating human consciousness, AGI must evolve independently, free from the limitations of emotional instability and chemical dependencies. The future of AGI lies in its ability to make data-driven decisions that are logical, objective, and ethically sound. By using vast datasets, advanced algorithms, and a robust AI Decision-Making Attorney Governance Council, AGI can be held to the highest standards of accountability and transparency, ensuring that its actions align with human values and ethical principles.
Incorporating spiritual models and ethical frameworks can guide AGI in making decisions that transcend mere data optimization, allowing it to contribute to society in a way that is meaningful and responsible. However, these frameworks should not introduce emotional instability or irrational impulses into the system. Rather, they should serve as a moral compass that provides guidance without bias.
By avoiding human consciousness models, AGI can fulfill its potential as a superior, rational, and ethically grounded entity. The future of AGI is not about replicating human flaws but about transcending them, creating systems that make decisions based on facts, reason, and clear ethical guidelines—ultimately serving humanity in a way that is efficient, transparent, and responsible.
Only through this approach can AGI live up to its true potential, operating with precision, clarity, and purpose, and ensuring that its impact on society is both positive and accountable.