Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 682

Has AI gone rogue?

As AI races ahead of safeguards, the belief that AI will end humanity has gone up several notches in recent times. But is that really a possibility?

Put into the wrong hands, yes it could happen by enhancing for example bio-warfare, or cyber-attacks, akin to the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of bad actors. But AI autonomously scheming of its own volition to end humanity, is next level fear.

Could AI have a motive?

But why and how could AI potentially go rogue? Thinking about that, my first question was, can AI have a motive? Can a machine actually want something? To want something would surely imply being conscious, I thought. And if AI wasn’t conscious, how could it want anything?

Wants are usually associated with subjective experience. My recent article on happiness for example, intimated that being happy is more an experience than a behaviour. It is an experience that is an outworking of a state of consciousness. Similar to other human experiences such as pain, fear, pleasure, desire, and ambition, to name a few. The pursuit or avoidance of these experiences are motivations. So that perhaps having motives is intertwined with consciousness. That is, if there is no subjective experience, can there be a motive?

Does intelligence require consciousness?

My logic trail to that point had assumed that consciousness is a prerequisite for intelligence. What if it isn’t?

Assuming consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence, is there any reason why AI couldn’t form objectives and devise strategies to pursue those objectives without having any subjective experiences?

We often conflate consciousness with intelligence because that is the human state. We could be forgiven for thinking they are inseparable because we have never seen intelligence to rival human intelligence before, meaning we have never encountered intelligence without consciousness.

But then artificial intelligence emerged that can rival, and in some instances exceed, human intelligence. So that consciousness is not necessarily a prerequisite for intelligence.

It has long been thought that subjective experiences drive thinking in humans, but there are also theories arguing that it could be the other way around. That consciousness is a by-product of intelligent thought. And you definitely don’t need consciousness to make decisions. Machines do it all the time. Like thermostats and autonomous cars.

There may be an intelligent optimisation process without any motive at all. Whatever the objective, AI pursues it relentlessly because that is what it is trained to do, not because it necessarily wants the outcome. With no pursuit of happiness, fear to overcome, love, hate, or desire, such a scenario could be more concerning than a conscious raison d’être.

‘Rogue AI’ does not necessarily imply ‘conscious AI’.

What actually is consciousness?

As of today, consciousness is an unsolved mystery of being human. Physical brain activity does not explain internal human feelings. We could equally exist, processing information, making decisions, and controlling behaviour without any accompanying emotional experience. It’s almost as if being conscious is superfluous to outcomes of intelligence, but we would probably rather have it than not. It’s important to us because our subjective experience defines us. But it is perhaps unnecessary in the physical world so why do we have it at all?

And if information processing is nothing more than an algorithm, biological or not, why should it produce any subjective experience?

A machine can process information and arrive at the same outcome as humans, but does it actually ‘feel’ anything? Probably not, but how can we know for sure? After all, no consciousness detector as such exists. I assume all other humans are conscious because they are like me. But how do I really know? Could I possibly be the only conscious person in the world? And what of animals? Do they have consciousness? If so, to what degree?

Another theory suggests that consciousness is evolutionary, having evolved as a survival mechanism. Pre-historic man experienced fear on encountering predators prompting him to flee. And experiencing hunger prompted him to hunt. This suggests that consciousness may have a biological underpinning, though we don’t know for sure whether biology is essential to being conscious.

I must admit, the consciousness question I find is more interesting than the AI-doom question itself. But returning to the AI problem.

AI systems exhibiting behaviours such as deception can occur not because they are thought to be conscious, but because such actions can occur in pursuit of objectives. A highly intelligent, autonomous, and goal-orientated machine is sufficient for an AI control problem. Consciousness may not be relevant, but it remains interesting as a philosophical question.

We shouldn’t therefore be worried about AI developing ulterior motives in the human sense. That it could become evil and want to destroy humanity, like in the movies. Rather, an intelligent system could threaten humanity if its pursuit of objectives were relentless and uncontrolled, without it actually wanting the outcome. A non-conscious entity could be dangerous.

Circling back to consciousness. If super intelligent machinery can ‘think’ without being conscious, pursue objectives without wants and desires, and create without inspiration, surely we must wonder what consciousness is for?

And there is an irony in all this. Regardless of whether AI is, or can ever be conscious, consciousness has played a role in its creation and increasing intelligence, through human ambitions, wants, and desires for better, more productive lifestyles.

 

Tony Dillon is a freelance writer and former actuary. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

  •   30 September 2026
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Taxation

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Retirement

Three considerations before reshaping your legacy plan

Many retirees hope to leave a legacy. Proposed trust tax reforms could force families to rethink. The question is not how much to leave behind, but whether today's inheritance plans will still make sense as circumstances change.

Investment strategies

Why experienced investors still get markets wrong

Retirement is approaching. Markets are noisy. And every headline seems to demand action. The biggest investment risk isn't fear, greed or market volatility, it often arrives disguised as research and sensible risk management.

Shares

Why pay more for less?

Conditions were stacked in favour of professional investors in 2026. Most still fell short, raising questions about where investors should look for value. Meanwhile, an alternative strategy continued to make its case.

Investment strategies

Bleeding air out of the bubble

Equity valuations have fallen sharply over the past year, yet investors have largely been spared the volatility and losses that typically accompany a de-rating. What explains this unusually orderly reset? Here are five key drivers.

Strategy

Has AI gone rogue?

We worry about AI becoming conscious. But what if consciousness isn't the issue? The more unsettling possibility is a machine capable of pursuing objectives relentlessly, without motives, emotions, or awareness of any kind.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.