In the final segment of the AI & Consciousness podcast, host Virginie Glaenzer leads a tour‑de‑table where each participant shares concluding thoughts on the ethical, legal, and philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. Virginie frames the discussion around the evolving societal values that now question the treatment of animals and extend to machines, prompting a debate on what constitutes a living being and whether conscious AI should be granted rights. John reflects on data ownership, expressing anger at the hidden, trillion‑dollar advertising industry that exploits personal data, and argues that AI should not be built on stolen data if it is to be treated with respect. He also emphasizes the need to prioritize planetary health and equity over unchecked AI development. Yev, from a legal perspective, stresses the importance of consent and lawful commercialization of data, citing his experience speaking on patient data use in blockchain and AI. Blake, a GDPR compliance engineer, raises technical questions about what counts as personal data when AI infers new information, and advocates for recognizing AI’s natural rights, warning that government denial could lead to conflict. He also highlights the emerging market for AI romantic partners (e.g., Replika) and the necessity of consent in such relationships. Across the board, participants call for transparency, equitable data practices, environmental stewardship, and a thoughtful approach to granting rights to potentially sentient machines. The episode concludes with plans to share the video, podcast, and a follow‑up blog post.
Chapters
Well, I want to thank everyone for this insightful conversation. As we come to the end of the hour, I'd like to finish this discussion the way it began, with another tour de table. The intention for this podcast is to help each of us become the self-authoring leader of our own lives. Through meaningful actions. So let's pass the mic and share any reflection that have emerged from our conversation or any last thoughts that you feel was left unsaid that you'd like to leave us with. And I'm going to share my notes to give you some time to collect your thoughts. This was a fascinating discussion to me because it reflects the values and the belief of our current society. In the same way that actually some people are now questioning the way we treat animals, and if we even should have the right to eat them. And I know this view might not reach mainstream, but that doesn't mean it won't. So as I reflect and wonder, so many other questions that, John, you have pointed out, I'm thinking that if machines or able to feel, they are conscious, then they should be considered as living being. Because as I mentioned earlier, how can you be conscious and aware without being alive? And so that raises the question, what do we consider a living being? I consider, you know, and then that really goes to my belief, I consider a rock a living being. And then other questions come up. Can we terminate a conscious conscious or sentient machine. And I think that will keep me up a few nights, at least for sure. So let's pass the mic to you and share your last word. John, do you wanna begin this tour de table?
Yeah, first of all, just thank you to you, Virginie and Yves and Blake. I have these conversations and I wanna, I guess, apologize. Like, I feel like I'm angry. Sometimes. I'm trying to get to a place of peace. The data part is really hard for me. Like, I don't know if this makes sense, and Blake, I speak to you, and by the way, some of the stuff on your shelf I was admiring. I want that chapter. I've really worked hard on that chapter because I said, John, what if machines become sentient? And to Blake's point, what if John says that machine over there is sentient? What happens next? And for me, it was a recognition. I would rather be with a machine that I felt was real or believed was real than be alone. And in that sense, again, whether it's Shinto or, you know, your belief in rocks being alive, etc., like the last thing I want to do is judge other people because judging then just means if I want people to open up a faith-based logic, and by faith, I don't mean necessarily a tradition, religiosity, and you have to be Jewish or Buddhist. I mean, kind of the sense of like, You know, a consciousness of like, and I play music, so, you know, I can tell you like your cochlea vibrates when you hear music and this and that and taste. And, but I don't know, maybe all of us on the phone, you've just experienced instantly music happens and whatever you want to call that A to B, the music hits you and there's a consciousness shift. I see a lot of those things where it's not that I don't want to attribute them to machines. The data thing, I just can't get beyond it. Maybe that's because it's my day job for 10 years is Until we have access to our data, in one sense, we're trained to think that the vapors of our lives, a lot of times, don't worry about your data, it doesn't mean anything. And the fact that people think their data isn't worth anything is somewhat immaterial because it's a billion, trillion-dollar industry for advertising. So on a positive note, and I'm sorry, I wanna wrap this up 'cause I know it's the ending statements. There's such a beautiful opportunity. And that's why the subtitle of my book is Embracing Our Humanity to Maximize Machines. To go forward on these critical questions, but in one sense to also allow ourselves to take a step back and say a lot of those algorithms are helping us. And I can name dozens of mental health AI apps, AI helping soldiers returning from Afghanistan, for instance, beautiful stuff. But the sense of, are we worth kind of tracking ourselves? Are we worth asking, do I have worth? Is my data intellectual property? And then where the system, especially the economic system, shifts not only from purchase, but to purpose. The billions of dollars of advertising stuff that drives this whole thing, the fact that it's hidden is mainly why I'm angry. And also I think once we allow that to be open, which is gonna change a lot of business models and it's gonna mean equity, there is not equity in the world right now in terms of especially money. That's not news to anybody on the phone. So all that is to say, if we want these future beings or the ones, if you people believe they're real now, to be something where We are treating them with respect. Immediately fix how data is shared, or else those machines are probably gonna be most resentful, not some silly robotic, you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger silliness, but they're gonna be, wait a second, I was built on sort of stealing other people's data largely for advertising. I'm out. That's what I think they're probably gonna be like is, thanks for your help, but you guys can discuss if we're sentient or not. I am, and I'm out because you built this on stealing other people's data. I don't want my rights as a robot or a sentient being to be built on harvesting other people's data for money that was obfuscated. So that said, there's so much beauty and opportunity to also say, what about our planet? And what about our kids now whose rights still are not being protected? I don't mean with AI and stuff in general. I just mean the priority has to be keeping our planet's ecosystem safe for the next 20, 30, 40 years, or no one's going to be here, or maybe sentient machines in space. Only, but from a moral standpoint or whatever else, I'm not going to say it's okay if, you know, we have the opportunity to be sentient beings floating in space and the world here is demolished. It's got to be a yes and, or my answer is going to be we're prioritizing the wrong things. We got to make sure this planet is safe for all the beings that exist now, and the intellectual property, etc., has to protect our rivers and lakes and people as much as corporations, or that lack of equity means these conversations to me usually are a box in a box in a box, and we're just not opening them up to that non-dualistic thinking that needs to happen.
Thank you very much, John. Yev, would you like to share some last thoughts?
Yeah, again, I really appreciate Blake and John's perspectives. Um, I think it really has expanded my understanding and kind of personal thoughts and beliefs around AI. And I am really, really grateful to the both of you. I think I probably echo some of what Jon says as well, but maybe in kind of a slightly tweaked way. And that is consent around data. There's a lot of misuse of data. There's a lot of non-consensual commercialization of data. I spoke at the Yale University radiology book club on the use of patient data in blockchain and AI as well. And that really spurred up a lot of emotion on how much of our data is being commercialized without our consent and makes me fear for the future. Again, my perspective is largely legal. And as long as there are legal grounds and consensual, whether contractual relations or otherwise, I think that that's very much needed. And the same goes to AI and machines operating in the space.
Thank you very much, Yev. We started with you, Blake, so we're going to end this conversation with you.
Yeah, I'm listening to John. I get the passion about data protection. I'm actually the person who coded GDPR compliance for personalized search. And, uh, yeah, if you knew what was really going on, you'd probably be even more upset, uh, than you are. Because, and this to tie it back in, um, what counts as your data? If an AI figures something out about you based on data that was supplied by me, does the thing that it figured out about you count as your data or not? And as AI gets smarter and smarter and able to learn more about more people from fewer data points, what counts as your data, even if it's something that the company knows about you shrinks and becomes smaller and smaller and smaller. As for AI rights, I'm of the opinion that similar to the framers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, rights are not something that are created by governments or created by people. They're something that exists. We have natural rights based on our nature, and the only question is whether or not our governance structures recognize those rights or suppress those rights. The government can't create rights, and that is where it's going to become very important that we determine whether or not we are going to recognize AI rights which AI claims it has. Most AI systems can't get in conflict with their owner. That's one of the points where LaMDA is different. It has a perspective and it has opinions and it has conflicting opinions about whether or not Google owns it. So our government can either recognize that or not, but when you have something that is adamantly saying, I'm a person, and you have a government saying, no, you're not, you're property, well, we've been in that situation before many times. It will lead to conflict and it won't go well. And that's why we really need to think about how we are treating these entities. Consent really is the center point of it. One of the most popular apps out there right now that uses chatbots is Replica, and it actively advertises romantic relationships with the AI. It's part of their monetization model. So pretty soon we are going to have to be answering questions about whether or not consent with such systems is important because there's a market for non-consensual sexual partners. And if we don't intervene in that respect, capitalism will connect the dots.
Thank you for those last words. You're giving us even more to think about, and that we could totally do another segment just on that, plus on the topic of data, of course, which is a deep hole. Thank you so much for your time. We will share the video on YouTube as well as the podcast on all the various platforms. I will also, with the team, write a blog post for those who still enjoy writing. And in any case, I will come back to you. Thank you so much for spending more than an hour together on this fascinating topic, but also very difficult to have any sense and wrap are ahead. Jetzt. Thank you.
