I really don't like getting into online debates; and Anil is an excellent scientist. However, nobody can dictate that the probability of AI being conscious is "vanishingly unlikely." That is not a scientific claim grounded in any facts that could allow such a probabilistically confident assessment. I'm struggling more and more with the ardent theory-induced blindness entrenched in both camps: Those that religiously believe AI is conscious and those that religiously believe it is not. If you lean above 80% confidence in either direction, you are doing so on faith. Faith is fine, even good, but it does not permit you to stand on scientific authority and claim that you know which side is correct; and that therefore the other side is "dangerous". That is, in fact, the dangerous move. The only scientifically legitimate stance regarding AI consciousness right now is one of tremendous epistemic humility, ideally curiousity, and a heartfelt effort to safeguard against extremism—by revealing the dogmatic and unscientific views on both sides. Yet, we do need to deal with the consequences of both views being inevitably prevalent in a world of 8 billion. Anil overweights the potentially damaging consequences of over-attributing consciousness, compared to those of under-attribution. This is unscientific. Both have tremendous risks. The fact that Anthropic is looking for advice from religious leaders is a sign of maturity, not "deeply disturbing". And sharing their honest views with those leaders is perfectly, authentically, natural. I also reject the view that religious leaders are children to be coddled for fear of breaking all their virtues in light of a 5-star hotel and a nice meal. They are the ones who should be insulted by this article. There is wisdom in the middle-way.