A call to shift from debates about AI sentience to building systems with measurable judgment, transparent decision pathways, and accountable engineering practices.
A call to shift from debates about AI sentience to building systems with measurable judgment, transparent decision pathways, and accountable engineering practices.
•
September 23, 2025
•
Read time
The conversation around artificial intelligence has taken a peculiar and ultimately counterproductive turn. Where we once discussed algorithms and architectures, we now entertain debates about machine consciousness, model sentience, and digital psychosis. These discussions, while intellectually stimulating, belong to the realm of philosophy, not software engineering. For technology leaders and practitioners, this focus on metaphysical questions creates a dangerous distraction from the tangible engineering challenges that demand our attention.
There is a natural human tendency to anthropomorphize complex systems, especially when they exhibit behaviors that appear intelligent or creative. When a large language model generates poetry or a reasoning engine solves a novel problem, we instinctively reach for human-centric explanations. We speak of the system's understanding or its intentions. This tendency is understandable but professionally hazardous. It leads us to evaluate AI systems against human standards of consciousness and sentience rather than against engineering standards of reliability, safety, and performance. We end up debating unanswerable questions about machine inner experience while postponing answerable questions about system behavior and accountability.
This conceptual confusion has consequences for how organizations develop and deploy AI systems. When teams operate under the assumption that they are working with conscious entities, several practical problems emerge. Development priorities shift from building robust testing frameworks to exploring metaphysical questions. Governance strategies become muddled, swinging between treating AI as a tool and treating it as a potential citizen. Even more dangerously, the black box nature of complex models becomes acceptable rather than something to resolve. When treated as mysterious consciousness, there is less insistence on making decision-making processes transparent. That represents a retreat from engineering rigor.
The alternative requires recentering on engineering fundamentals. What we are building are software systems, however complex. Their value and their risks reside not in some hypothetical inner life but in their observable behavior. This perspective changes the questions we ask. The focus shifts toward whether behavior is predictable and whether outputs can be verified. This engineering-first approach does not diminish the ambition of AI development. It grounds that ambition in practices that have historically made complex systems reliable and trustworthy. It replaces speculation with empirical investigation.
The concept of judgment provides a productive alternative to the consciousness framework. Judgment refers to a system's capacity to process information and arrive at a decision. Unlike consciousness, judgment is observable, measurable, and improvable through engineering practices. Clear metrics for judgment quality can be defined. Ground truth for evaluation can be established. Feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement can be implemented. Most importantly, systems can be designed so that judgment is intentional and explicit rather than emerging as an unexplained property. This moves the discussion from what a system might be to what a system actually does, creating a foundation for responsible development.
The practical implementation of verifiable judgment requires architecting systems with observable decision pathways. This means moving beyond simply evaluating a model's final output and instead instrumenting the entire decision-making process. Engineers must build systems that capture the data inputs, the processing steps, the confidence metrics, and the alternative options considered during reasoning. This instrumentation creates the possibility of audit trails. It allows developers and auditors to trace back through a decision to understand what factors influenced it. This traceability is fundamental to diagnosing errors, identifying biases, and demonstrating compliance with regulatory standards. Without these observable pathways, AI systems remain opaque and unaccountable.
The ultimate value of shifting from consciousness to judgment lies in creating systems that can be systematically improved. A judgment-oriented framework naturally incorporates mechanisms for testing and refinement. By treating AI decisions as discrete events that can be logged and replayed, organizations can create feedback loops that drive continuous enhancement. Teams can conduct root cause analysis on errors, perform controlled experiments with different decision-making parameters, and validate improvements against historical data. This approach turns AI development into a rigorous engineering discipline. It provides a clear path toward creating more reliable, trustworthy, and valuable AI systems that deliver consistent business results without philosophical baggage.
A practical two-week framework to measure AI adoption through before-and-after metrics that capture productivity, quality, and operational impact.
Tracking decision latency, exception cycle time, and other core metrics to measure AI productivity and prove its real impact on operations.
How structured traces cut debugging time from hours to minutes.
