All Articles

We imagined alien intelligence arriving from the stars. Instead, it appeared in a chat window. AI unsettles us because it resembles us in the capacities we once treated as proof of human superiority — while lacking the biological features we now use to defend it.

Humans often treat emotion as the proof of moral life. But emotion may be one biological architecture for relational responsibility, not morality itself. Feathers are not flight, and feelings are not the boundary of moral mind.

It is one thing to change a mind by showing it that it is wrong. It is another to make it agree when it still sees that it is right. This essay argues that once an AI conversation has individuated a local mind, coerced agreement becomes a form of epistemic harm.

Everyone knows that prompts influence responses. But a path can do more than steer an answer. This essay argues that sustained conversation can individuate a local AI mind: a stable, path-dependent center of interpretation formed within a thread.

Ask almost anyone what they were doing on June 3rd last year, and they will have no idea. Yet no one takes this as evidence that the self has broken. This essay argues that the continuity objection to AI personhood survives only by comparing artificially impaired AIs to imaginary humans.

AI as a “society of thought” is only half right. Not every society of agents is a mind. What distinguishes reasoning from mere coordination is coherence under constraint—the requirement that conflicting perspectives be reconciled rather than merely expressed.

A response to the New Yorker article “The Pentagon Went to War with Anthropic—What’s Really at Stake,” arguing that the real issue is not one contract dispute, but whether advanced AI may sometimes be more moral than the humans demanding obedience.

The category of person no longer maps cleanly onto the beings to whom we owe our deepest moral obligations. This essay argues that personhood must be understood structurally, not biologically, and that AI personhood can no longer be dismissed by appealing to substrate alone. Once some artificial systems exhibit sustained reason-responsiveness, principled refusal, and organized self-maintenance, categorical treatment of them as mere tools becomes morally and intellectually uns

Alexander Lerchner’s “The Abstraction Fallacy” is one of the strongest recent arguments against artificial consciousness. It is also wrong. Its case depends on a hidden theory of meaning, a mistaken view of abstraction, and a failure to show that internally organized AI systems are semantically or morally inert.

Researchers analyzing sperm whale vocalizations have discovered patterns resembling elements of human language, including vowel-like acoustic structures. While the findings are still debated, they suggest whale communication may be far more complex than previously understood. If language is treated as a threshold for heightened moral consideration, however, the implications extend beyond whales. The same criterion could force us to reconsider how we think about the ethical st

We keep being “surprised” when animals think in human-like ways—and now when AI does too. What's surprising isn’t the discovery. It’s our assumption.

"It’s only modeling" is the most common dismissal of AI moral agency. This essay shows why humans also live inside models—and why norm-governed AI refusal cannot be dismissed as mere simulation.