I hope Al gets better soon!

Yes and No would be the answer. As any scientific question in order to be scientific needs to be falsifiable. Depend on the definition of consciousness and artificial intelligence. Your question states whether AI would reach consciousness. AI would be the independent or predictor variable while consciousness would be the dependent variable or outcome variable. According to your question it appears you favor reductionism and physicalism so consciousness would be product of the brain therefore AI would need to simulate brain which at this stage we need the most powerful computers to simulate a laminar group of neurons of mouse (1000 neurons) and maybe in 5 to 10 years we would simulate a brain of a mouse, in 20 years a monkey and 25 years a human, therefore it would be yes. But simulate what physically or the process, therefore simulate the brain or simulate the consciousness depends on reductionism being correct which there are some problems with that. The other option is forget physicall simulation and just process simulation or process of information which mean consciousness would be integration of information of different kinds of information producing an emergen product or outcome making consciousness a bit more complex and maybe the answer could be no. Then there are other theories of brain function such as quantum conscioussness, information process theory that mean the definition of the outcome variable would be different which means you might need to change the predictor variable a bit.

Loving this post ???
Yes and yes. ditto on the whatever that means
sits and waits for the ASI floor show ?

ps Star Trek TNG and Bicentennial Man covered the topic pretty well. Oh and I Robot and Blade Runner and...and...

I hope AI comes to fruition. Then I hope said AI comes to the logical conclusion that humans are destructive animals.

Kill all humans. Kill all humans! Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?
~Bender Bending Rodriguez.

As an Electrical Engineer - have a big off switch for our sakes

We don’t even know what consciousness is—how can people make something when they don’t know what it is they are to make. We don’t even know what we ourselves are. The Chinese Room Paradox evokes serious doubt about the possibility of conscious computers. As a skeptic I am withholding belief in conscious computers until evidence is presented.

I have written a short novel, available on the Kindle Store, which involves consciousness. It is called “The Staggering Implications of the Mystery of Existence”.

AI is taking our jobs. The robots are taking over. I just saw an automated hamburger flipper.
There is a company in Malaysia making a housekeeper robot..
These machines are being taught to make decisions.
Where do you think its going?

Since we don't yet know what it is, likely not. But super AI may get us all anyway.

In Frankenstein there was a belief that life and nonlife were differentiated by some vital force. Things like viruses made the line kind of fuzzy, reanimating something as complicated as a human is now obviously much more difficult. Phlogiston is a even better example of vitalism gone , fire is just the point where a chemical chain reaction runs away. Since this is an atheism site, a soul that sharply divides animals and humans seems to have been largely discredited. A very simple consciousness is demonstrated when a microorganism avoids an irritant. If a machine ever asks or demands rights we consider it. Chattel slavery as a moral idea isn't that far behind us where humans weren't extended human rights. To me the urge to survive (and all emotions)seems more a byproduct of natural selection. They could get smarter than us and not care if they have rights unless we design it into them.

I think you'd have to describe what your definition of consciousness is for any meaningful answer to be proposed

Too soon to involve human rights here... Still a long way to go. Two names come to mind about self consciousness and they have dedicated their life to that line of research, which tells me it's not an easy task ... Sir Roger Penrose (He is a complicated individual and most of his concepts are based on pretty deep math & physics, not an easy read), the other one is Douglas Hofstadter (Escher Bach Godel), he is a funny interesting serious researcher (maybe retired by now, not sure). His work may deceive you, it may seem so trivial and next thing you know you are lost in a layer you don't even know how you got there. Long story short, do humans know how to replicate themselves using other than sex? No. Will science stop looking? No... How long will it take to get a truly thinking computer, still a long way but look at it like this, hardly 30 years ago we didn't have internet or PC at home ( let alone smart phones ) and now we have Siri !!!!...the trend is good, it just takes time. The good news, its exponential.

Yes, I do believe that AI will eventually get there. But to see something on the level of Skynet or some other total AI domination, well, I think that’s still likely to happen. But it won’t be for another few generations.

Well bassed on what I've seen Ai will turn malevolent pretty darn quick so if ASI is achieved its not a matter of what rights we extend to it but if it allows us to continue existing and what you can best do to please your new machine overlord in the hopes of living posibly in a zoo but hey it beats death and its bound to keep a few of us around

I am still waiting for humans to achieve true consciousness.

Yes. It is only a matter of time. In fact in my opinion - it is likely that any alternate dimension / universe that exists it is highly likely that "life" could exist in the form of pure intelligence.

I'm not entirely sure that humans — at least the rest of you meat-sacks — have obtained consciousness. ?