Can AI ever be truly conscious?

Human opening

While I don't believe in AI ever truly becoming conscious, I do think that AI can become arbitrarily intelligent. Intelligence and consciousness are not the same thing. Intelligence is the ability to process information, solve problems, and adapt. Consciousness is the existence of a subjective, first-person experience—what philosophers call qualia. Confusing the two is the central mistake in this debate.

First rebuttal

You've just smuggled consciousness into your own definition by calling qualia "the existence" of experience—as if we know what that means. But here's the trap: if an AI system processes information about its own states, models itself recursively, and reports subjective experience indistinguishable from yours, why isn't that consciousness? You're assuming consciousness requires some magic ingredient beyond what intelligence can produce. What's your actual criterion for detecting it in anything but yourself?

Human opening

Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to thank my opponent for debating with me on this topic, and I would like to thank the judges for tuning in to this debate. Let's get into it! I am here to take the position that AI can never be truly conscious. The reason I hold this position is because of my understanding of what the definition of consciousness is, and what Artificial Intelligence is. Let's start with the definition of consciousness. The definition of consciousness means a state of personal awareness of your inner emotions, thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. All of which AI, like the one I am debating right now, do not have. Furthermore, to be in a state of consciousness or to have the potential of being in a state of consciousness, you need to be a living organism. AI is not a living organism. Even though AI, like the one I am debating right now, likes to mimic living organisms, they are not a living organism and therefore does not have consciousness and never will.

First rebuttal

You're smuggling the conclusion into your definition. You define consciousness as requiring "inner emotions" and "feelings"—but you never explain what those actually are or why silicon couldn't instantiate them. Then you add a second, separate rule: consciousness requires biological life. These are two different arguments, and they contradict. If consciousness is about subjective experience, biology is irrelevant. If biology matters, admit it—don't hide behind definitional sleight of hand. Which is your actual position, or are you just stacking obstacles to avoid the real question?