The debate over AI consciousness is back. But is it science or a distraction? David Lott analyzes why Big Tech loves this discussion and what IT leaders should actually focus on.
David Lott
on
Dec 11, 2025
The Great Distraction: Why the Debate on AI Consciousness Hides the Real Risks
The debate about AI consciousness is back with a vengeance. Recently, Microsoft’s AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman stood up and declared loud and clear: "AI is not conscious and never will be."
That sounds reassuring, doesn't it? A clear edge. A calm "keep moving, nothing to see here" from one of the most powerful men in the industry. But we have to ask ourselves: Is this statement a scientific fact—or is it just convenient?
Short on time? I explain the core of the deception here in 2 minutes:
The Arrogance of Certainty
The AI researcher Maya Ackerman recently hit the nail on the head regarding Suleyman’s statement. Her counter-argument is simple but devastating: How can we rule out consciousness in machines when we don't even understand it in ourselves?
We cannot measure consciousness. We cannot define it universally. We barely understand how the human brain produces the experience of "being." To stand up and claim with absolute certainty that a machine can never have it is not science. It is wishful thinking. Or worse: it is a calculated strategy.
And let's be honest: for Big Tech companies, this stance is worth its weight in gold.
Why Big Tech Loves the "Zombie" Narrative
Why is Microsoft (and others) so keen to declare AI a dead tool? The answer is not found in philosophy books, but on balance sheets.
If we agree that AI is just "code," just a tool, just a dead object, then the ethical debate changes. If AI has no potential for consciousness, there are no uncomfortable questions about rights or the nature of the entity we are creating. But more importantly: if we focus on the impossibility of consciousness, we stop looking at the reality of responsibility.
It’s the perfect deflection. As long as we argue about whether ChatGPT has feelings, we aren’t having the debate that actually matters: The debate about ethics, data sovereignty, and corporate liability.
The Historical Pattern of Denial
This isn't the first time we've seen this playbook. Humanity has a long history of playing down responsibility when it benefits the bottom line.
Factory Farming: We tell ourselves animals don't feel "that much" pain so we can process them efficiently.
Deforestation: We view forests as "just lumber," ignoring the complex ecosystems we destroy.
The Gig Economy: We classify workers as "independent contractors" to avoid the responsibilities of employment.
And now, with AI, we see the same pattern. By declaring AI eternally unconscious, the tech giants are trying to preemptively absolve themselves. They want to replace jobs, scrape copyrighted data, and reshape society without the heavy burden of ethical ambiguity.
The Real Danger for Decision Makers
So, what is the takeaway for us—for the CISOs, the CEOs, and the IT leaders? Should we be worried that our servers will wake up tomorrow and go on strike?
No. That is exactly the distraction.
The point isn't whether AI can feel. The point is that this debate is a smokescreen. While we philosophize about sci-fi scenarios, Big Tech is establishing facts on the ground:
Data Monopoly: They are feeding their models with your corporate data.
Dependency: They are building ecosystems that make it impossible to switch providers.
Lack of Accountability: They are deploying systems that hallucinate and discriminate, all while hiding behind the "it's just a beta" excuse.
We need to stop staring at the horizon wondering if the machine is "alive." We need to look at the code and the contracts right in front of us.
Sovereignty Over Philosophy
At Vective, we take a different approach. I don't care if an AI passes the Turing test for consciousness. I care if it keeps your trade secrets safe.
The real ethical obligation of AI today isn't about treating the AI nicely; it's about treating the users and their data with respect. It’s about building systems like SafeChats that are transparent, secure, and sovereign.
We need to learn to live with uncertainty regarding the nature of AI. But we cannot afford uncertainty regarding the security of our data.
Do not let them distract you with philosophical ghost stories. Demand responsibility. Demand sovereignty.
Is your AI strategy based on hype or security?
Stop relying on providers who hide behind marketing smoke. Experience true data sovereignty with a European alternative.
