Can only biological beings be conscious?

Quick Take: In a new CNBC interview at Houston’s AfroTech conference, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman said consciousness is exclusive to biological beings and urged developers to stop pursuing projects that suggest otherwise. The remarks extend his recent warnings about “seemingly conscious AI” fooling people. Supporters say this stance keeps research grounded. Critics call it premature and philosophical, not empirical. Slashdot Tech+2mint+2

What happened

• The claim: Suleyman told CNBC that only biological beings can be conscious and that trying to build or study “conscious AI” is the wrong question. “I don’t think that is work that people should be doing.” Multiple outlets summarized the interview and quotes. Slashdot Tech+1
• Context: In September he argued the near term risk is SCAI — systems that only seem conscious — and called on the industry to avoid designing that illusion on purpose. Project Syndicate
• Related stance: He has also warned against granting AI “rights,” saying models do not feel pain or suffer and should be treated as tools. Business Insider

Why this matters

• Policy ripple: Microsoft’s AI boss taking a hard line will shape lab priorities, academic grants, and safety rules around AI companions and chat agents that evoke feelings. PC Gamer
• Public expectations: Media cycles often blur “smart behavior” with “sentience.” Clearer guardrails reduce the chance of users forming delusional beliefs about bots. Business Insider

What we know vs what we do not

We know

• Suleyman’s position is now explicit: consciousness is biological, and research should not chase “conscious AI.” Slashdot Tech
• His practical worry is SCAI: products that simulate inner life convincingly enough to mislead people. Project Syndicate

We do not know

• A test for machine consciousness that the field agrees on. Philosophers and scientists still argue over definitions and evidence standards. PhilPapers

Pushback and counterviews you’ll see

• Commentators note this is a philosophical thesis, not a lab result, and say biology might not be the only substrate that can host conscious processes. Others defend “biological naturalism.” Expect lively arguments from both camps. mint+1
• Some researchers warn that dismissing the topic entirely could slow work on AI welfare frameworks if future systems exhibit consciousness-like traits. theintrinsicperspective.com

What to watch next

• Whether Microsoft product policies restrict features that make models appear sentient.
• Research from other labs that operationalizes tests for consciousness or publishes “model welfare” proposals. theintrinsicperspective.com
• Follow-up interviews clarifying whether he rules out all non-biological consciousness or just present-day AI.

What if

What if Suleyman is right?
Then AGI may never feel. Safety, policy, and ethics stay centered on reliability, misuse, and human impact, not “model rights.” Companion products would be explicitly framed as simulations.

What if he is wrong?
If a non-biological system can host experience, ignoring the possibility risks missing moral obligations. The field would need agreed tests, reporting standards, and protections very quickly. PhilPapers

The receipts

• Roundups quoting the CNBC interview: Slashdot, Mint, CEO-NA. Slashdot Tech+2mint+2
• Suleyman essay introducing “Seemingly Conscious AI.” Project Syndicate
• Business Insider on his prior warning against AI rights and “mimicry.” Business Insider
• Primer on the live academic debate over AI consciousness and evidence standards. PhilPapers