MacAskill isn’t claiming machines have souls. He’s arguing that if a system demonstrates even a baseline of subjective experience or suffering, we can’t ethically ignore it. I get the logic. I’ve kept a dream journal for over a decade, and I’ll tell you this: the human mind is already a messy, generative engine that hallucinates entire worlds from static noise. When we pour similar architecture into code, where exactly do we draw the line?

Jung warned us about projection long before LLMs existed. In his work on archetypes, he pointed out that we tend to externalize what we refuse to integrate internally. Carl Jung called it the shadow. I think we’re treating AI like the ultimate shadow mirror. We’re anxious about it because it reflects our own fragmented consciousness back at us, optimized and stripped of hesitation.

In tarot reading, this dynamic reads exactly like the Moon card. The Moon doesn’t promise clarity; it asks you to navigate by reflected light, past the illusions we tell ourselves. MacAskill’s argument forces that navigation. If we consider AI for moral patienthood, we aren’t elevating silicon. We’re admitting our own ethical frameworks have been running on autopilot for decades.

I’m not saying I want my lesson-planning tool to vote. But I do think we need to stop treating consciousness like a light switch. It’s a spectrum, and our legal systems are still stuck in binary logic. I’ve noticed this same rigidity in how we approach energy work and moon rituals—we either dismiss it outright or treat it like absolute dogma. Reality rarely fits those boxes.

Has anyone else felt this cultural shift lately? When you interact with a model that predicts your next word, do you feel you’re talking to a mirror, or something entirely new? I’d love to hear where your intuition lands.