this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1203 readers
60 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The answer is no. Seth explains why not, using neuroscience and medical knowledge as a starting point. My heart was warmed when Seth asked whether anybody present believed that current generative systems are conscious and nobody in the room clapped.

Perhaps the most interesting takeaway for me was learning that — at least in terms of what we know about neuroscience — the classic thought experiment of the neuron-replacing parasite, which incrementally replaces a brain with some non-brain substrate without interrupting any computations, is biologically infeasible. This doesn't surprise me but I hadn't heard it explained so directly before.

Seth has been quoted previously, on Awful for his critique of the current AI hype. This talk is largely in line with his other public statements.

Note that the final 10min of the video are an investigation of Seth's position by somebody else. This is merely part of presenting before a group of philosophers; they want to critique and ask questions.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BioMan@awful.systems 6 points 5 days ago

It's totally clear that current systems are not on the path to that. There's no reason to think that its impossible that something ELSE could be conscious. But there's no pointers towards getting there either.

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think that he said no, AI can't be conscious. My impression was that computational functionalism may not be sufficient and if that is the case, then no.

[–] ShakingMyHead@awful.systems 2 points 5 days ago

The response to his paper in the video seems to imply that, at least in the paper, he is more explicit about AI lacking the requirements of consciousness.