Introduction
Contemporary debates on AI often get bogged down in the question of whether machines are conscious. This text analyzes the approach of Dennis Yi Tenen, who proposes moving away from anthropomorphism in favor of a theory of distributed cognition.
Readers will discover why AI should be treated as an advanced cultural artifact rather than an autonomous mind. We will explore the concept of the Common Good, which aims to protect human agency against digital homogenization and the monopolization of knowledge.
Intelligence as a Multidimensional Architecture of Capabilities
Asking whether AI is intelligent is fundamentally flawed because it collapses different levels of analysis into a single concept. We confuse data processing with self-awareness and moral responsibility.
Instead of searching for a single substance of intelligence, we should view it as a multidimensional architecture of capabilities. A system can be brilliant at linguistic prediction while remaining completely devoid of embodiment and agency.
An example is AI as a speaking library. It is an artifact that synthesizes the collective linguistic output of humanity, yet possesses no intentionality of its own.
AI as Distributed Cognitive Infrastructure, Not an Autonomous Mind
The ability of AI to generate human-like responses does not imply consciousness. Language models learn about the world indirectly, utilizing the traces left by humans in texts.
AI is a distributed cognitive infrastructure. It is not a single synthetic mind, but a system that remembers like a family and thinks like a state.
We do not need to resolve the question of AI consciousness to define our relationship with it. The key is to distinguish observable functional competencies from unproven phenomenal properties.
Responsibility and Agency in the Chain of Complementarity
Responsibility for AI does not reside within the model, but across the entire chain: from data creators to operators. Behind the facade of autonomy lies a so-called judgment team—invisible workers and researchers.
While this technology impacts productivity, it does not automatically increase organizational efficiency. The value of AI depends on complementarity, meaning it should support human judgment rather than replace it.
AI should function as an autonomizing scaffold. It should elevate human competence so that, once the tool is removed, the user is more capable of independent action.
Summary
The measure of AI's maturity will not be the moment a machine successfully mimics a person. Rather, it will be the moment humanity learns to harness its power without surrendering its own agency.
We must build these systems as a Common Good, ensuring pluralism and practical wisdom (phronesis). AI can become either a mirror of our capitulation or a tool for transcending the limits of individual reason.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the question of whether AI is intelligent insufficient and flawed?
This question is insufficient because it wrongly assumes that intelligence is a homogeneous substance that can be determined by a 'yes' or 'no' answer. In reality, it bundles too many different phenomena into one concept, from information processing and communication to self-awareness and moral responsibility.
Does the ability of AI to generate human-like responses mean that it possesses a human mind and consciousness?
No, linguistic fluency does not resolve the question of consciousness, and high functional competence is a problem distinct from phenomenal consciousness. Current research provides no evidence for the existence of consciousness in LLM models; therefore, their observable competencies must be distinguished from unproven phenomenal properties.
Who bears responsibility for the actions of AI, and how does this technology affect real productivity and human competencies?
Responsibility for AI's actions should be reconstructed along the entire chain of design, training, deployment, control, and use. This technology brings real, albeit uneven, productivity gains that depend on work organization and implementation quality, while in terms of competencies, it shifts the value of human labor toward higher cognitive, socio-emotional skills, and adaptability.
How should AI technology be organized at the state and societal level so that it does not become a tool for control and cultural homogenization?
AI technology should be organized as a polycentric ecosystem where public, open, and commercial solutions coexist, preventing the monopolization of knowledge. It is crucial to ensure a pluralism of information sources and to expand social control over data usage to protect cultural and linguistic diversity from standardization.
Why does simply increasing the technical capabilities of AI not replace human ethics and politics?
AI only increases technical intelligence (the ability to achieve goals), whereas ethics and politics are essential for the wise selection of those goals and the definition of values that must be protected. Thus, technological development does not replace human practical wisdom but paradoxically increases the demand for it to avoid human normative dependence on infrastructure.
How should artificial intelligence be organized and supervised so that it serves humanity as a cognitive tool rather than becoming an autonomous authority or a tool of control?
Artificial intelligence should be integrated into hybrid cognitive ecosystems that enable verification and error correction by linking models with databases, measurement tools, and the supervision of humans and institutions. This organization must be based on the principle of the Common Good, ensuring pluralism, accountability, and the protection of shared knowledge resources (the epistemic commons), which prevents the concentration of control in the hands of a single entity.
How are the concepts of authorship and responsibility changing in the age of AI, and who is actually 'thinking' when we use generative models?
When a machine responds, there is no single answer to the question 'who is thinking?', because agency is distributed across several levels: computational (the model), training (data and design), interactional (the user), institutional (the organization), and cultural (language). Authorship in the age of AI is therefore defined not by independently writing every character, but by assuming epistemic and normative responsibility for the final text.
Do we need to resolve the issue of AI consciousness to determine our relationship with this technology?
No, it is not necessary, because one can acknowledge the functional reasoning of AI without resolving the question of its phenomenal consciousness. The key is not whether machines can 'really' think, but rather the way the shared cognitive process between humans and machines is organized.
What should be the role of AI in society to ensure that it does not replace human responsibility and agency?
AI should serve as an infrastructure for shared cognition that helps people understand the world more accurately and make informed decisions, rather than taking over responsibility for the world. It is crucial to utilize its power in a way that preserves human subjectivity and the political freedom to choose one's own goals.
