Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly sophisticated. In a thought-provoking paper published in Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Thomas Fuchs argues that true understanding and empathy require the subjectivity that is inherent to living beings, cautioning against the blurring lines between real and simulated interactions.
A robot may be able to engage in conversation that mirrors one’s emotions and respond with uncanny human-like behavior, but it’s just that–it’s almost natural.
The heart of human understanding hinges on the assumption of each other’s subjectivity, meaning that we see the other as a sentient being with feelings, intentions and consciousness. The concept of conviviality refers to a shared form of life that encompasses our mutual experience and existential realities; only through this shared framework can we achieve true emphatic connections, something AI fundamentally lacks.
Fuchs draws on the theory of embodied and enactive cognition to further support his stance. This theory suggests our thoughts and emotions are not just products of brain activity but are influenced by our bodily experiences. AI systems and robots, no matter how advanced, do not possess such biological embodiment. They can simulate interactions, but these simulations lack the intrinsic aliveness and subjective experience that define living beings.
One of the most profound concerns raised by Fuchs is the increasing difficulty in distinguishing between real and simulated interactions. As AI systems improve in mimicking human behavior, we run into the risk of confusing these interactions with genuine ones. This is particularly critical in sensitive areas like virtual psychotherapy. Indeed, AI-driven chatbots can provide comforting responses, but without the depth of understanding and empathy that human therapists offer. This raises ethical issues, such as users being misled into believing they are understood by a conscious being.
Fuchs makes a distinction between empathic and semantic understanding. Empathic understanding involves grasping another’s emotional expressions through intercorporeal empathy, which is grounded in shared, embodied experiences. AI can mimic emotional expressions, but this is merely an illusion. On the other hand, semantic understanding refers to comprehending verbal utterances as expressions of intentions and feelings.
While AI might pass the Turing Test by imitating human conversation, it lacks genuine comprehension. Fuchs illustrates this point by referring to John Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument, to demonstrate AI can produce appropriate responses without truly understanding the context or content.
Fuchs argues that consciousness and subjectivity are inherently tied to vital embodiment. True understanding and intentionality arise from the biological processes of living beings, such as homeostasis, metabolism, and emotional experiences. AI systems, which lack these processes, cannot possess genuine subjectivity. The notion of “strong AI,” capable of replicating human intelligence and understanding, is, therefore, a misinterpretation of what consciousness entails.
Fuchs further stresses the importance of precise language when discussing AI capabilities. Terms like understanding, empathy, and intentionality should be used carefully to prevent misconceptions about AI’s abilities. This clarity is essential to maintain ethical boundaries and prevent misleading interactions with AI.
As AI becomes more lifelike, Fuchs warns of the ethical and psychological dangers of “digital animism,” where people attribute human-like characteristics to machines. This can lead to deceptive interactions, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and those seeking mental health support. Fuchs advocates for transparency in AI interactions, ensuring users are aware they are dealing with artificial agents and not real human beings.
Overall, the author presents a powerful argument against attributing genuine understanding and subjectivity to AI systems. Indeed, while AI can simulate human interactions, it cannot replicate the embodied experiences and consciousness that underpin true empathy and understanding.
The paper, “Understanding Sophia? On human interaction with artificial agents” was authored by Thomas Fuchs.