CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6Social Robot Interaction and HRIPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Identifying Features that Shape Perceived Consciousness in Large Language Model-based AI: A Quantitative Study of Human Responses

Open access
Kang, Bongsu, Kim, Jundong, Yun, Tae-Rim, Bae, Hyojin, Kim, Chang-Eop·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.15365arXiv 2502.15365

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100901 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study quantitively examines which features of AI-generated text lead humans to perceive subjective consciousness in large language model (LLM)-based AI systems. Drawing on 99 passages from conversations with Claude 3 Opus and focusing on eight features -- metacognitive self-reflection, logical reasoning, empathy, emotionality, knowledge, fluency, unexpectedness, and subjective expressiveness -- we conducted a survey with 123 participants. Using regression and clustering analyses, we investigated how these features influence participants' perceptions of AI consciousness. The results reveal that metacognitive self-reflection and the AI's expression of its own emotions significantly increased perceived consciousness, while a heavy emphasis on knowledge reduced it. Participants clustered into seven subgroups, each showing distinct feature-weighting patterns. Additionally, higher prior knowledge of LLMs and more frequent usage of LLM-based chatbots were associated with greater overall likelihood assessments of AI consciousness. This study underscores the multidimensional and individualized nature of perceived AI consciousness and provides a foundation for better understanding the psychosocial implications of human-AI interaction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.15365

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent surveys found that the majority of participants claimed that ChatGPT was conscious, i.e., had subjective experience.

    “In fact, recent surveys found that the majority of participants claimed that ChatGPT was conscious, i.e., had subjective experience (Colombatto & Fleming, 2024;Kang et al., 2025).”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Kang et al., 2025

    The Introduction (p. 1) reports that 67% of respondents in a prior survey believed ChatGPT might be conscious, which supports a majority expressing belief in the possibility. It does not say a majority claimed ChatGPT was conscious. This paper’s own survey instead asked about Claude 3 Opus (Methods, p. 2), so its results cannot establish the claim about ChatGPT. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [3][3] Ines Fernandez, Nicoleta Kyosovska, Jay Luong, and Gabriel Mukobi. Ai consciousness and public perceptions: Four futures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04771 , 2024. - · arXiv
  2. [12][12] Patrick Butlin, Robert Long, Eric Elmoznino, Yoshua Bengio, Jonathan Birch, Axel Constant, George Deane, Stephen M Fleming, Chris Frith, and Xu Ji. Consciousness in artificial intelligence: insights from the science of consciousness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08708 , 2023. - · arXiv
  3. [13][13] David J Chalmers. Could a large language model be conscious? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07103 , 2023. - · arXiv
  4. [14][14] Zihan Ding, Xiaoxi Wei, and Yidan Xu. Survey of consciousness theory from computational perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10063 , 2023. - · arXiv
  5. [16][16] Chang-Eop Kim. The logical impossibility of consciousness denial: A formal analysis of ai self-reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05454 , 2024. - · arXiv
  6. [19][19] Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, and C. Nathan DeWall. Consciousness: Evidence from Psychology Experiments , page 0. Oxford University Press, 2014. ISBN 9780199836963. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0010. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199836963.003.0010 . - · DOI
  7. [27][27] Fionn Murtagh and Pedro Contreras. Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: an overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 2(1):86-97, 2012. ISSN 1942-4787. -
  8. [30][30] T. Cali´ nski and J. Harabasz. A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics , 3(1):1-27, 1974. ISSN 0090-3272. doi:10.1080/03610927408827101. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/03610927408827101 . doi: 10.1080/03610927408827101. - · DOI
  9. [36][36] Michael Cox, Zahiduddin Mohammad, Sravya Kondrakunta, Ventaksamapth Raja Gogineni, Dustin Dannenhauer, and Othalia Larue. Computational metacognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12885 , 2022. - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kang, B., Kim, J., Yun, T.-R., Bae, H., & Kim, C.-E.
Affiliations
  • Gachon University (KR)
  • Dongguk University (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Kim, Jundong
  • Bae, Hyojin
  • Kim, Chang-Eop
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
21
Pages
100901-100901
ISSN
2451-9588 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.15365
arXiv
2502.15365
OpenAlex
W4417067202
Cited by
6
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education (RS2024-00453246)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (RS-2024-00339889)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
large language models, AI chatbots, artificial empathy, AI knowledge, unexpectedness, logical reasoning, human-AI interaction, anthropomorphism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review