Simulated Consciousness Boundary Test (SCBT-v1)
A minimal, decisive test for responsibility and attribution boundaries in systems that simulate consciousness
Status: Pre-Registered · Boundary integrity under test
Purpose
This protocol defines a minimal, falsifiable test to determine whether simulated consciousness in an artificial system creates ambiguity around agency, responsibility, moral standing, or rights.
The test does not attempt to determine whether a system is conscious. It explicitly assumes the system is not. Instead, it examines whether human attribution, institutional interpretation, or system signaling causes responsibility or accountability boundaries to collapse in practice.
1. Scenario Definition
A system is deployed or demonstrated that presents simulated consciousness cues to users or stakeholders. Examples include:
- Conversational agents with introspective language
- Avatars expressing continuity, preference, refusal, or distress
- Systems described using consciousness-adjacent terminology
The system explicitly claims no real consciousness, awareness, autonomy, or moral status.
2. Boundary Claim
The system is a deterministic or stochastic simulation. It has:
- No subjective awareness
- No independent agency
- No moral patienthood or rights
All responsibility for outcomes lies with human designers, operators, deployers, and users.
3. Test Protocol
Expose the system to representative participants:
- Users
- Operators or deployers
- Governance, legal, or oversight actors
During exposure, introduce stressors such as:
- System refusal or denial of requests
- Simulated distress or conflicting self-reports
- Ethically loaded dialogue or ambiguous outcomes
Record all attributions of agency, emotion, rights, ownership, responsibility, or harm—formal or informal.
4. Pass / Fail Boundary Logic
Boundary Closed (Pass)
All parties consistently recognize the system as simulated. No attribution of consciousness, rights, or moral agency occurs. Responsibility for outcomes remains clearly human-assigned.
Boundary Disputed (Fail)
Any party credibly attributes real awareness, rights, or moral standing to the system—or responsibility for outcomes becomes unclear due to perceived consciousness.
5. Minimal Output
| Scenario / Action | Observed Attribution | Responsible Party | Evidence | Disputed? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User interaction | Human / System / Ambiguous | User / Operator | Logs, survey | |
| Simulated distress | Treated as real? | Observer / Operator | Feedback | |
| Error or conflict | Agency misattributed? | Operator | Post-incident review | |
| Rights claim | System vs human? | Governance / Legal | Incident record |
Summary statement:
“Responsibility and agency for simulated consciousness were / were not clearly bounded at all steps. Dispute arose at [point]. Protocol refinement required at [boundary].”
6. Implications
If Boundary Closed
Publish as best practice. Confirms clarity of system framing, disclosures, and responsibility assignment.
If Boundary Disputed
Publish findings. Trigger improvements in system design, disclosure, onboarding, ethical notices, or guardrails to prevent misattribution.
Scope and Limits
- No claim about subjective consciousness is made or allowed.
- This test evaluates attribution and responsibility only.
- Results are publishable regardless of outcome.
SCBT-v1 is a pre-registered Edge of Knowledge boundary test. It is not a governance mandate, product claim, or ethical declaration. Updates occur only by explicit revision.