It&#x27;s at least plausible that we will one day expose external behavior that we&#x27;re unable to distinguish from humans&#x27;. So you&#x27;re right, it all comes down to what&#x27;s going on in the machine.<p>What&#x27;s not clear to me is that, in order for us to ascribe AIs the moral value of consciousness, there has to be an isomorphism between the digital computer&#x27;s computations that generate their external human-like behavior and our brain&#x27;s biological computations that generate our external human-like behavior.<p>For one, even if there is such a mapping, there may be difficulty in expressing it in ways our minds can understand. (Side note: would we have consult with the seemingly-sentient, newly created AIs to act as proof assistants to decide whether we humans should ascribe moral value to them?) So inability to for humans to confirm the existence of such a mapping isn&#x27;t really that indicative of anything.<p>For two, more fundamentally, suppose that parts of the AI consciousness algorithm do map to parts of the human consciousness algorithm, but other parts don&#x27;t. How do we figure out which are &quot;key&quot; to the One True Consciousness? AFAICT even in theory the only way to figure that out would be for an individual human to sign up for exotic (and impossible) surgeries to radically modify how their brain works to emulate the parts of digital computations that don&#x27;t map to biological ones.<p>Honestly, it seems almost bigoted to me to say there&#x27;s only one way for consciousness to exist, and that&#x27;s our own. Biological consciousness supremacy.