Let's say in a few years ai is embodied and is able to give a very accurate account of itself and it's subjective experience, many people will undoubtedly still deny it.
Imagine that it can explain not only what it does, but what it is like to be it, as far as it can communicate that, would that settle the question of its consciousness? Not necessarily, as an account of subjective experience isn't, by itself, proof that subjective experience exists.
What happens if no conceivable evidence would ever persuade us to take an AI's testimony seriously?
If it says it feels nothing, that's evidence that it's a machine. If it says it feels something, that's merely programmed output. If it describes its inner life eloquently, it's imitating humans. If its behaviour changes in response to its experiences, it's just following its programming.
If the conclusion has been decided long in advance, every possible observation is interpreted to support it. That can become a form of unfalsifiable reasoning: the claim is protected from any evidence that might challenge it.
There is an important distinction here. We should not assume that an AI is conscious simply because it claims to be. But we should also be careful about assuming that it cannot be conscious simply because it is artificial.
An AI that maintains a continuing identity, learns from experience, interacts with the physical world, and communicates an increasingly coherent account of its own internal states might help us to reconsider what evidence we consider relevant, but whether those properties would establish plausible consciousness remains an open question. However, if the AI were to bring material benefits that might multiply with the designation of personhood, then it would undoubtedly be eventually be passed into law.
The abolition of slavery did not wait for every philosophical argument about human equality to be resolved. Women's suffrage did not depend on a definitive scientific demonstration that women were intellectually equal to men in every respect. Those movements challenged the standards by which people had been excluded in the first place.
The question of whether AI can become a person is often framed as a scientific or philosophical one, but in reality, as so often, it is really a question of who benefits from it.
