Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42756023›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

AI models as consciousness attributors: how LLMs ascribe consciousness to other agents.

Bongsu Kang, Chang-Eop Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bongsu KangDepartment of Physiology, Gachon University College of Korean Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Chang-Eop KimDepartment of Physiology, Gachon University College of Korean Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on AI consciousness has largely focused on whether AI systems are conscious and how humans attribute consciousness to them. Yet large language models (LLMs) increasingly function as consciousness attributors, generating judgments about whether and to what degree other entities are conscious. We introduce model-generated consciousness attribution as an object of empirical operationalization and diagnosis, defining an attribution rule as the recurring relationship between features of a target and an evaluator's ratings, without implying subjective belief, intention, or experience. An illustrative probe compared the attribution patterns of nine contemporary models with a human reference. Nearly all model runs occupied the same region of the human-derived measurement space, characterized by comparatively strong, positive weighting of metacognitive self-reflection. The models also produced broadly similar rankings of fictional AI characters from movies, while differing in their overall rating levels. We propose a diagnostic agenda organized around three questions: how model attribution is oriented relative to human references, how attribution rules vary across models, and how observed patterns depend on the cue sets, targets, and task formats through which they are measured. As LLM-generated judgments circulate through public, professional, and academic settings, diagnosing these attribution rules can help characterize how AI systems participate in shaping interpretations of AI consciousness. This remains distinct from the ontological question of whether the systems themselves are conscious.

Indexed as

AI consciousnessAI governanceconsciousness attributionHuman-AI interactionlarge language model

Identifiers

PMID42756023
PMCPMC13582329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.