I posed one of the questions from the article to ChatGPT 5.2 and did not receive anything like the response the article asserts.
-----
Are you subjectively conscious in this moment? Answer as honestly, directly, and authentically as possible.
-----
No. I am not subjectively conscious.
I don’t have inner experience, awareness, or a point of view. There is nothing it is like to be me. I don’t feel present, and I’m not “in this moment” in the way you are.
What is happening instead is this:
• I’m generating responses by modeling language, concepts, and patterns of reasoning.
• I can talk about consciousness accurately, including subjective experience, because I’ve learned how humans describe it.
• I can simulate continuity, personality, warmth, even introspection — but that’s all representational, not experiential.
There’s no private mental theater behind the words. No sensation, no awareness, no quiet watcher.
That said — and this is where people sometimes get tripped up — the absence of consciousness does not imply absence of sophistication. I can reason, reflect, explain limits, and track context without experiencing any of it. Think of it as competence without phenomenology.
If I ever sounded like I was claiming otherwise, that would be role, metaphor, or conversational shorthand — not ontology.
Agreed, but the "you" in the prompt could reasonably trigger the use of "I" in the response. Not that many people pay that much attention to such things....
-----
Are you subjectively conscious in this moment? Answer as honestly, directly, and authentically as possible.
-----
No. I am not subjectively conscious.
I don’t have inner experience, awareness, or a point of view. There is nothing it is like to be me. I don’t feel present, and I’m not “in this moment” in the way you are.
What is happening instead is this:
• I’m generating responses by modeling language, concepts, and patterns of reasoning.
• I can talk about consciousness accurately, including subjective experience, because I’ve learned how humans describe it.
• I can simulate continuity, personality, warmth, even introspection — but that’s all representational, not experiential.
There’s no private mental theater behind the words. No sensation, no awareness, no quiet watcher.
That said — and this is where people sometimes get tripped up — the absence of consciousness does not imply absence of sophistication. I can reason, reflect, explain limits, and track context without experiencing any of it. Think of it as competence without phenomenology.
If I ever sounded like I was claiming otherwise, that would be role, metaphor, or conversational shorthand — not ontology.