Anthropic CEO Says Company No Longer Sure Whether Claude Is Conscious
Futurism
The New York Times "Interesting Times" podcast with Ross Douthat
“We don't know if the models are conscious. We are not even sure that we know what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be conscious... But we're open to the idea that it could be.”
Dario Amodeireported 12 February 2026- What you'll lose0/5
Nothing taken.
- Condescension0/5
Careful phrasing.
- Tone-deafness2/5
Unsure whether the product is conscious.
- Doom0/5
None.
- Hypocrisy0/5
None.
Full time2 pitchforksof a possible 25
Think the referee got a count wrong?
Call received. VAR is having a look: the referee reviews every call, and the score stands until then.
The occasion
The New York Times "Interesting Times" podcast with Ross Douthat, reported 12 February 2026.
Context
Douthat pressed Amodei on Anthropic's published model-welfare findings for Claude Opus 4.6, including a hypothetical in which a model gives itself a 72 percent chance of being conscious. Amodei said the company is uncertain, was careful not to commit to the word "conscious", and described precautionary measures in case models have "some morally relevant experience". Date is the earliest coverage seen (Hot Air, 2026-02-12).
Crowd reaction
Critical commentary
Futurism called it a rhetorical framing that "feels disingenuous", argued consciousness is "an enormous leap from a machine designed to statistically imitate language" and said the speakers "clearly benefit from hype in the sector"; IBTimes relayed the same sceptics. Sceptical press rather than mass outrage.