{"slug": "scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious", "title": "Scientists are seriously asking if bees and ChatGPT are conscious", "summary": "Scientists are investigating whether honey bees and artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT could possess consciousness, moving beyond behavioral tests to examine internal information processing mechanisms. Two new papers propose that consciousness cannot be determined solely by outward actions, suggesting that while current AI is likely not conscious, the possibility remains open for both insects and future machines. This research expands the ethical debate over which entities deserve moral consideration, as over 500 scientists have signed a declaration acknowledging consciousness may exist in vertebrates, cephalopods, crustaceans, and insects.", "body_md": "# Scientists are seriously asking if bees and ChatGPT are conscious\n\n- Date:\n- June 5, 2026\n- Source:\n- The Conversation\n- Summary:\n- New studies suggest consciousness can't be judged solely by behavior, whether it's a chatbot discussing philosophy or a bee searching for nectar. Researchers are increasingly focusing on the internal mechanisms of brains and computers, concluding that today's AI is likely not conscious while leaving open the possibility for both conscious insects and future machines.\n- Share:\n\nYou might think a honey bee foraging in your garden and a browser window running ChatGPT have nothing in common. But [recent scientific research](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2025/380/1939) has been seriously considering the possibility that either, or both, might be conscious.\n\nThere are many different ways of studying consciousness. One of the most common is to measure how an animal – or artificial intelligence (AI) – acts.\n\nBut two new papers on the possibility of consciousness in animals and AI suggest new theories for how to test this – one that strikes a middle ground between sensationalism and knee-jerk skepticism about whether humans are the only conscious beings on Earth.\n\n## A fierce debate\n\nQuestions around consciousness have long sparked fierce debate.\n\nThat’s in part because conscious beings might matter morally in a way that unconscious things don’t. Expanding the sphere of consciousness means expanding our ethical horizons. Even if we can’t be sure something is conscious, we might err on the side of caution by assuming it is – what philosopher Jonathan Birch [calls the precautionary principle](https://academic.oup.com/book/57949) for sentience.\n\nThe recent trend has been one of expansion.\n\nFor example, in April 2024 a group of 40 scientists at a conference in New York proposed the [New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness](https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration). Subsequently signed by over 500 scientists and philosophers, this declaration says consciousness is realistically possible in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians and fishes) as well as many invertebrates, including cephalopods (octopus and squid), crustaceans (crabs and lobsters) and insects.\n\nIn parallel with this, the incredible rise of large language models, such as ChatGPT, has raised the serious possibility that machines may be conscious.\n\nFive years ago, a seemingly ironclad test of whether something was conscious was to see if you could have a conversation with it. Philosopher Susan Schneider [suggested](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691216744/artificial-you) if we had an AI that convincingly mused on the metaphysics of consciousness, it may well be conscious.\n\nBy those standards, today we would be surrounded by conscious machines. Many have gone so far as to apply the precautionary principle here too: the burgeoning field of [AI welfare](https://eleosai.org) is devoted to figuring out if and when we must care about machines.\n\nYet all of these arguments depend, in large part, on surface-level behavior. But that behavior can be deceptive. What matters for consciousness is not what you do, but how you do it.\n\n## Looking at the machinery of AI\n\nA new [paper](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011) in Trends in Cognitive Sciences that one of us (Colin Klein) coauthored, drawing on [previous work](https://theconversation.com/why-chatgpt-isnt-conscious-but-future-ai-systems-might-be-212860), looks to the machinery rather than the behavior of AI.\n\nIt also draws on the cognitive science tradition to identify a plausible list of indicators of consciousness based on the structure of information processing. This means one can draw up a useful list of indicators of consciousness without having to agree on which of the current cognitive theories of consciousness is correct.\n\nSome indicators (such as the need to resolve trade-offs between competing goals in contextually appropriate ways) are shared by many theories. Most other indicators (such as the presence of informational feedback) are only required by one theory but indicative in others.\n\nImportantly, the useful indicators are all structural. They all have to do with how brains and computers process and combine information.\n\nThe verdict? No existing AI system (including ChatGPT) is conscious. The appearance of consciousness in large language models is not achieved in a way that is sufficiently similar to us to warrant attribution of conscious states.\n\nYet at the same time, there is no bar to AI systems – perhaps ones with a very different architecture to today’s systems – becoming conscious.\n\nThe lesson? It’s possible for AI to behave *as if* conscious without *being* conscious.\n\n## Measuring consciousness in insects\n\nBiologists are also turning to mechanisms – how brains work – to recognize consciousness in non-human animals.\n\nIn a [new paper](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0301) in Philosophical Transactions B, we propose a neural model for minimal consciousness in insects. This is a model that abstracts away from anatomical detail to focus on the core computations done by simple brains.\n\nOur key insight is to identify the kind of computation our brains perform that gives rise to experience.\n\nThis computation solves ancient problems from our evolutionary history that arise from having a mobile, complex body with many senses and conflicting needs.\n\nImportantly, we don’t identify the computation itself – there is science yet to be done. But we show that if you *could* identify it, you’d have a level playing field to compare humans, invertebrates, and computers.\n\n## The same lesson\n\nThe problem of consciousness in animals and in computers appear to pull in different directions.\n\nFor animals, the question is often how to interpret whether ambiguous behavior (like a crab tending its wounds) indicates consciousness.\n\nFor computers, we have to decide whether apparently unambiguous behavior (a chatbot musing with you on the purpose of existence) is a true indicator of consciousness or [mere roleplay](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06647-8).\n\nYet as the fields of neuroscience and AI progress, both are converging on the same lesson: when making judgement about whether something is consciousness, how it works is proving more informative than what it does.\n\n**Story Source:**\n\n[Materials](https://theconversation.com/are-animals-and-ai-conscious-weve-devised-new-theories-for-how-to-test-this-269803) provided by [ The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/). Original written by Colin Klein and Andrew Barron.\n\n*Note: Content may be edited for style and length.*\n\n**Journal References**:\n\n- Patrick Butlin, Robert Long, Tim Bayne, Yoshua Bengio, Jonathan Birch, David Chalmers, Axel Constant, George Deane, Eric Elmoznino, Stephen M. Fleming, Xu Ji, Ryota Kanai, Colin Klein, Grace Lindsay, Matthias Michel, Liad Mudrik, Megan A.K. Peters, Eric Schwitzgebel, Jonathan Simon, Rufin VanRullen.\n**Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems**.*Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 2026; 30 (6): 488 DOI:[10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.10.011) - Colin Klein, Andrew B. Barron.\n**Phenomenal interface theory: a model for basal consciousness**.*Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 2025; 380 (1939) DOI:[10.1098/rstb.2024.0301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0301)\n\n**Cite This Page**:\n\n*ScienceDaily*. Retrieved June 5, 2026 from www.sciencedaily.com", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious", "canonical_source": "https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/06/260604044258.htm", "published_at": "2026-06-05 05:27:32+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-06-05 15:54:32.842909+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "large-language-models", "ai-ethics", "ai-research"], "entities": ["ChatGPT", "The Conversation"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/scientists-are-seriously-asking-if-bees-and-chatgpt-are-conscious.jsonld"}}