Because it's being instructed by unpunished , unchecked, corporate greed.

I had friends in CS always worried some real megalomaniac AI would take over the world.

I was never worried about that. I figured megalomaniac humans would just use tech to do it. Maybe try to blame it on the program to get out of accountability.

A program that can't be punished, jailed, fined, or held accountable in any form.

Looks like they (tech bros) are already trying to make claims of such to lay the groundwork for that defense at a later date.

Cognitive processes are a product of neural architecture.

The specific necessary number of neurons needed ..is the wrong question.

I recommend looking into the fascinating creature known as Portia. A Jumping spider. That has a very teeny tiny brain yet is incredibly efficient at using what they have to perform complex planning and adjustments.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568049/pdf

Yeah that's the hard problem I gave you a link to.

There are multiple theories. Some listed on wiki.

A problem is defining what consciousness even is. Like a specific measurable construct. Not a vague abstract idea.

And depending on your answer, will result in a different theory on what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Also the "binding problem" is related to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

Just because it's not fully understood doesn't mean that a mystical magical explanation is true.

But I can assure you it's not based on mathematical probability formulas.

Otherwise SPSS would have gained sentience 30 years ago.

Awareness is a product of the organic structure and processes of nerve tissue because that's what all brain functions are a product of.

I personally ascribe to the theory that understanding of a self is a product of sensory processing as it's imperative for an organism to understand it's different and independent from its environment to interact with it.

But maybe that's not your definition of consciousness.

If instead your definition is more about quali , then the binding problem is more akin to your question.

The binding problem is complex. And our lack of understanding how it works is why we can't program a computer to have it.

But binding sensory information together to create a cohesive "picture of reality" is not my definition of consciousness.
But it could be yours.

My definition is the "sense of self as independent from environment".

Because people with brain damage that impairs "binding" does not take away a sense of self. So to me, the sensory binding isn't required to consciousness. Consciousness exists without it.

There are other resources than Wikipedia on both these concepts I describe.

Whole books written about them.

But now you know the terms so you can find additional resources. I honestly can't sum up the entirety of that information better than I Already have without writing you an essay.

Just check out the wiki.

The theories start under the philosophical section of the hard problem page.

No. That's the definition of a fap. Fixed action pattern.

Aka "Instincts".