Public debate often focuses on whether AI is conscious. This is a distraction. The real danger lies in its sheer competence to pursue a programmed objective relentlessly, even if it harms human interests. Just as an iPhone chess program wins through calculation, not emotion, a superintelligent AI poses a risk through its superior capability, not its feelings.

The leading theory of consciousness, Global Workspace Theory, posits a central "stage" where different siloed information processors converge. Today's AI models generally lack this specific architecture, making them unlikely to be conscious under this prominent scientific framework.

The popular concept of AGI as a static, all-knowing entity is flawed. A more realistic and powerful model is one analogous to a 'super intelligent 15-year-old'—a system with a foundational capacity for rapid, continual learning. Deployment would involve this AI learning on the job, not arriving with complete knowledge.

Current self-driving technology cannot solve the complex, unpredictable situations human drivers navigate daily. This is not a problem that more data or better algorithms can fix, but a fundamental limitation. According to the 'Journey of the Mind' theory, full autonomy will only be possible when vehicles can incorporate the actual mechanism of consciousness.

Today's AI models are powerful but lack a true sense of causality, leading to illogical errors. Unconventional AI's Naveen Rao hypothesizes that building AI on substrates with inherent time and dynamics—mimicking the physical world—is the key to developing this missing causal understanding.

To determine if an AI has subjective experience, one could analyze its internal belief manifold for multi-tiered, self-referential homeostatic loops. Pain and pleasure, for example, can be seen as second-order derivatives of a system's internal states—a model of its own model. This provides a technical test for being-ness beyond simple behavior.

The debate over AI consciousness isn't just because models mimic human conversation. Researchers are uncertain because the way LLMs process information is structurally similar enough to the human brain that it raises plausible scientific questions about shared properties like subjective experience.

Consciousness isn't an emergent property of computation. Instead, physical systems like brains—or potentially AI—act as interfaces. Creating a conscious AI isn't about birthing a new awareness from silicon, but about engineering a system that opens a new "portal" into the fundamental network of conscious agents that already exists outside spacetime.

It's unsettling to trust an AI that's just predicting the next word. The best approach is to accept this as a functional paradox, similar to how we trust gravity without fully understanding its origins. Maintain healthy skepticism about outputs, but embrace the technology's emergent capabilities to use it as an effective thought partner.