The article discusses how machine learning systems that detect covert consciousness in neurologically injured patients pose a significant challenge at the intersection of clinical medicine, AI ethics, and Islamic jurisprudence. It argues that moving from binary clinical verdicts to probabilistic, temporally granular neural-state estimates should be addressed through three foundational constructs in Islamic legal epistemology: bayyina (clear evidentiary proof), yaqin (epistemic certainty), and theologically mandated agnosticism about the soul. The authors survey current AI-based consciousness detection literature, map it onto Islamic brain death scholarship, identify key challenges, and explore implications for AI surrogate decision systems.
The Digital Consciousness Model (DCM) is introduced as a systematic, probabilistic framework for evaluating evidence of consciousness in AI systems, drawing on multiple leading theories of consciousness. Initial results indicate that, while the evidence suggests 2024 large language models (LLMs) are not conscious, this conclusion is not decisive and is weaker than evidence against consciousness in simpler AI systems.
arXiv:2606. 00044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical medicine creates a fundamental tension between algorithmic probabilistic reasoning and the experiential intuition of expert physicians; applying Lawrence Lessig's \enquote{Code is Law} framework, I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation, reshaping liability and the standard of care.
Ansari is a retrieval‑grounded Islamic AI assistant that has handled over 140,000 conversations in more than 25 languages since June 2023. It uses an agentic retrieval loop where a language model searches authenticated Islamic corpora—including the Qur’an, hadith collections, fiqh encyclopedias, and tafsir sources—and answers only based on retrieved content, providing citations for verification. The paper details Ansari’s architecture, multi‑platform deployment, evaluation results (including top performance on the IslamicMMLU leaderboard and strong resistance to false premises), and lessons for faith‑sensitive LLM deployments.
arXiv:2608. 19215v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Given deep uncertainty about the possibility of artificial consciousness, it is unclear how we should treat potentially sentient AI.
arXiv:2609.35618v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The question of AI consciousness is one of the most urgent pre-emptive problems in philosophy and computer science, yet progress is hampered by a c...
arXiv:2606. 31616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely expected to transform clinical practice, yet the decision-making processes of many Machine Learning (ML) models remain opaque.
arXiv:2609.22038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce QuranicMMLU, a benchmark for evaluating generative AI on Quranic Arabic across multiple dimensions of linguistic complexity. Existing Qura...
arXiv:2608. 15405v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Afterlife Delegation Protocol is a speculative design project that asks what death becomes when a will can act eternally.
The paper introduces OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline that adds an Adversarial Lawyer Agent to each of the three reasoning steps—offense, unlawfulness, and culpability—in legal judgment prediction models. By actively injecting defense arguments, the agent challenges the model’s default assumption of guilt, which is common in datasets biased toward guilty outcomes. Using a new Natural Innocent dataset of 3.4k real cases, OBJECTION reduces the False Guilty Rate from 82.93% to 16.69%, demonstrating significant improvement in substantive legal reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 09664v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: To provide a structured and interpretable assessment, we decompose the image-based diagnosis into components following the Toulmin model of argumentation.
arXiv:2606. 23716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights.
arXiv:2606. 18158v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models now produce legal text of at least median quality, yet no existing benchmark can evaluate whether they perform doctrinal legal reasoning, which forms the interpretive core of legal work, rather than the ancillary, paralegal tasks that most current legal-AI evaluations measure.