Could an AI have conscious experiences? Any answer to this question should conform to Evidentialism - that is, it should be based not on intuition, dogma or speculation but on solid scientific evidence. I argue that such evidence is hard to come by and that the only justifiable stance on the prospects of artificial consciousness is agnosticism. In the current debate, the main division is between biological views that are sceptical of artificial consciousness and functional views that are sympathetic to it. I argue that both camps make the same mistake of over-estimating what the evidence tells us. Scientific insights into consciousness have been achieved through the study of conscious organisms. Although this has enabled cautious assessments of consciousness in various creatures, extending this to AI faces serious obstacles. AI thus presents consciousness researchers with a dilemma: either reach a verdict on artificial consciousness but violate Evidentialism; or respect Evidentialism but offer no verdict on the prospects of artificial consciousness. The dominant trend in the literature has been to take the first option while purporting to follow the scientific evidence. I argue that if we truly follow the evidence, we must take the second option and adopt agnosticism.

翻译：人工智能是否可能拥有意识体验？对此问题的任何回答都应遵循证据主义原则——即不应基于直觉、教条或推测，而应建立在坚实的科学证据之上。本文认为此类证据难以获取，关于人工意识前景唯一合理的立场应是不可知论。当前争论主要分为对人工意识持怀疑态度的生物学观点与持同情态度的功能主义观点。本文论证双方均犯有高估证据解释力的相同错误。对意识的科学认知源于对有意识生物体的研究。尽管这使得我们能够谨慎评估各类生物的意识状态，但将此框架延伸至人工智能领域面临严重障碍。因此，人工智能向意识研究者提出了一个两难困境：要么违背证据主义原则对人工意识作出裁决，要么遵循证据主义原则但拒绝对人工意识前景作出判断。现有文献的主流趋势是在宣称遵循科学证据的同时选择了前者。本文主张，若真正遵循证据，我们必须选择后者并采取不可知论立场。