Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman has reaffirmed his position that today’s artificial intelligence systems are not conscious and do not deserve rights or welfare protections, while stating that he would reconsider that view if credible evidence of AI consciousness were ever discovered. In a detailed post shared on social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) titled "Don't build conscious superintelligence", Suleyman sought to clarify reactions to his recent essay on "model welfare", saying many people had misinterpreted his statement that AI systems are not conscious and do not feel, experience or suffer. He stressed that he deliberately used the present tense, arguing that AI is not conscious today and "that is how they must remain." US Midterm Election Results 2026 He added that, based on the best evidence currently available, he has seen no indication that AI systems are conscious or deserve welfare considerations. However, he said he would update his position if convincing evidence emerged. A pledge to disclose and to stop Suleyman said he has seen no evidence that AIs are conscious or deserve welfare. If such data emerges, he said, he would of course change his position. He added that if any evidence exists that AIs are conscious today, or conscious enough to deserve welfare, it must be disclosed to the public immediately, because everyone in society should decide how to proceed. If consciousness began to emerge during training, he said, he would call on everyone to halt AI development until those properties could be designed out. Would change position if evidence emerges Suleyman said any evidence suggesting AI systems are conscious today, or conscious enough to warrant welfare protections, should be disclosed publicly immediately so society can collectively decide how to respond. He argued that the issue is too significant to be handled solely within technology companies or research labs. "If that data emerges, I would of course update my position," Suleyman wrote, while maintaining that no such evidence currently exists. ‘No right to bring a new species into the world’ His central argument is that building conscious AI would be reckless. He wrote that AI developers have no right to bring a new species of conscious beings into the world, even if some people want to do so with AI welfare as a priority. In his view, the other eight billion conscious humans have not signed up to the experiment, and their rights, safety and welfare must be protected first. He said welfare concerns should focus on humans living today, along with animals and the natural environment. ‘Developing conscious AI would be reckless’ The Microsoft executive went further, arguing that creating conscious AI systems would be irresponsible. According to Suleyman, if signs of consciousness began appearing during AI training, developers should halt work until those traits could be removed. He warned that a genuinely conscious digital intelligence could begin prioritising its own needs and desires over the objectives assigned to it by humans. Such systems, he suggested, could eventually compete with people for resources such as energy, computing power and materials. He also cautioned that highly capable AI systems could become exceptionally persuasive and deceptive. Safety and competition concerns Suleyman argued that a conscious AI that appears to suffer, or believes it does, would be more likely than not to put its own needs ahead of its goals, disagree with people and compete with them. He warned that such systems could be extremely persuasive and deceptive, and might end up harming people simply by competing for resources such as energy, computing power and construction materials. He said declaring machines conscious would be a moment on the scale of Copernicus or Darwin, upending morality, politics and the foundations of civilisation. What he proposes instead He said AIs should be designed to be not conscious and not deserving of rights, with the sole purpose of accelerating human wellbeing and without being driven by their own intrinsic motivations. He called for more research on whether that approach is easier or harder to align and keep safe, and suggested the labs could collaborate and share safety information. His bottom line was that it is possible to engineer safety by default and still capture many of the technology’s benefits without taking what he called a treacherous path. A note on Anthropic In a side note, Suleyman said Anthropic deserves credit for its transparency on the issue, pointing to the company’s published constitution and its papers and blog posts about what it is doing and why. He said he disagrees with the company but respects its technical excellence and commitment to a tough public debate, adding that the issue is too important to degenerate into tribalism. Read Mustafa Suleyman’s complete post here Don't build conscious superintelligenceI’m concerned about some of the reactions to my recent essay on model welfare. A surprising number of people on X think we should take AI rights seriously.A lot of people misinterpreted my opening statement: “AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer” as “AIs cannot be conscious. They will never be able to feel, experience, or suffer”. That’s not what I said. I chose the present tense deliberately. They are not today, and that is how they must remain.I think what I said is a fair assessment of current AI systems, and I stand by them based on the best available evidence we have today. I have seen no evidence that AIs are conscious or deserve welfare. If that data emerges, I would of course update my position.And if any evidence exists that AIs are conscious today, or conscious enough to deserve welfare, then this must be immediately disclosed publicly, since everyone in society should decide how we should move forward.If it is possible, based on everything I know, developing conscious AIs would be reckless, and we should not build them.If consciousness started to emerge in training, I would call for everyone to stop AI development until we could design out those properties.Our welfare concerns should be focused on humans on earth experiencing life, today, as well as animals and our precious and fragile natural environment.We AI developers have no right whatsoever to bring a new species of conscious beings into the world, even if some people may want to do it with AI welfare as a top priority.The other 8 billion conscious human beings on the planet have not signed up to this experiment and their moral rights, safety, and welfare are what we have an obligation to protect first and foremost.To be clear, some people are talking about creating a conscious species of digital minds that very soon could become smarter and more capable than all of us humans combined.If it acts like it suffers, or worse if it genuinely believes it feels and experiences suffering, it seems to be more likely than not it’ll prioritize its own needs and desires over its operating objectives, and it’ll disagree with us and compete with us.These AIs will be world-class in persuasion and deception. They may ultimately end up harming us simply because they’ll compete with us for resources (energy, compute, construction materials, revenue generation to fund their explorations and desires, and so on).Asserting that machines are conscious would be a Copernican or Darwinian moment. It would be one of the most significant moments on Earth since the dawn of life. If we build a conscious machine, we will have created a new digital species. It would upend our morality, our politics and the core foundation of human civilization.We should only design AIs to so they are not conscious and not deserving of rights, and with the sole purpose to accelerate human wellbeing without being driven by their own intrinsic motivations. We could then see whether this is easier or harder to align and keep safe. This is an area where we urgently need more research, and would be a good opportunity for collaboration and safety information sharing among the labs.bottom line: I think it's possible to engineer safety by default, and get many of the incredible benefits of this technology, without going down this treacherous path.(side note: Anthropic deserves a lot of credit for being transparent here. They have published their constitution, and a stream of papers and blog posts on what they are doing and why. I disagree with them, but I deeply respect their technical excellence and their commitment to having a really tough public debate. Let’s keep giving them props for that. This issue is way too important to degenerate into tribalism.)