u/zjovicic

What do you guys think of this study by Google Deep Mind?

Apparently, it argues that LLMs can never be conscious no matter what. And perhaps even challenges the standard understanding of substrate independence and computationalism, even though it doesn't argue that you need biological substrate.

Here's the abstract:

Computational functionalism dominates current debates on AI consciousness. This is the hypothesis that subjective experience emerges entirely from abstract causal topology, regardless of the underlying physical substrate. We argue this view fundamentally mischaracterizes how physics relates to information. We call this mistake the Abstraction Fallacy. Tracing the causal origins of abstraction reveals that symbolic computation is not an intrinsic physical process. Instead, it is a mapmaker-dependent description. It requires an active, experiencing cognitive agent to alphabetize continuous physics into a finite set of meaningful states. Consequently, we do not need a complete, finalized theory of consciousness to assess AI sentience—a demand that simply pushes the question beyond near-term resolution and deepens the AI welfare trap. What we actually need is a rigorous ontology of computation. The framework proposed here explicitly separates simulation (behavioral mimicry driven by vehicle causality) from instantiation (intrinsic physical constitution driven by content causality). Establishing this ontological boundary shows why algorithmic symbol manipulation is structurally incapable of instantiating experience. Crucially, this argument does not rely on biological exclusivity. If an artificial system were ever conscious, it would be because of its specific physical constitution, never its syntactic architecture. Ultimately, this framework offers a physically grounded refutation of computational functionalism to resolve the current uncertainty surrounding AI consciousness.

The whole study is downloadable via the link I provided.

I have love/hate relationship with video essays.

On one hand I really respect the format, and I appreciate all the effort and research creators put into it. I also appreciate the fact that we now live in such an era in which everyone can share their views and ideas with the world in such a compelling format. I think video essays are, in a way, a triumph of free speech. And of course, they shouldn't go anywhere.

But even if I appreciate something, it doesn't mean it should be spared from critique.

I will compare video essays to 3 other formats, and argue that, when it comes to truly disseminating ideas and knowledge and affecting your audience's worldviews, video essays are probably the worst. These other 3 formats are lectures (including video lectures), documentaries and classical (written essays).

The key problem that I have with video essays is that they are overloading you with information, way too fast. They are doing some sort of info-dumping. That's why I say "either I'm dumb or...". Perhaps I'm the problem. Maybe my processing speed is too slow and concentration too poor. But let's explore the other possibility. Maybe video essays themselves are a problem.

The problem with them is that they deliver spoken words at a pace of fast reading. This is not normal. It's not natural for us to process spoken words that fast. Imagine if you were at a lecture at University, and the professor doing the lecture instead of delivering it at their natural pace, with some breaks, asking questions, and lively interaction with students, choose to instead read directly from the textbook or from a script prepared in advance at a fast pace, without any breaks whatsoever. Of course, you can expect the students to leave such a lecture with very little newly knowledge, and even that knowledge would be rather chaotic and scattered.

This is exactly what authors of video essays do. They typically prepare the script in advance, and just read it at a fast pace. And even if they made any breaks, they cut it out in post-production so that we get just a huge, continuous stream of fast speech. Classic info-dump. Our brains are not designed to process this type of information.

Now let's compare them explicitly with other formats that I mentioned.

So, I already mentioned lectures. Lectures are unscripted. They are delivered at a natural pace. The more difficult the material gets, the slower the teacher speaks. Why? Because they themselves need more effort to grapple with difficult concepts, so they need to slow down. This gives students chance to catch up and do their own thinking. So lectures vs. video essays = Lectures win. This also includes unscripted lectures on YouTube (and even unscripted video essays spoken directly from their head). Everything unscripted is better than scripted because no script = more natural pace, and also less bullshit. When you have a script it's easier to sneak in some bullshit among the rest of the stuff. When you're speaking from your head and improvizing, each world passes through your critical filter before being spoken, so you'll likely skip some bullshity parts that could still remain a part of a tight script.

Now let's see documentaries. Documentaries are professionally produced media by big studios and by people who are professionals at dramatic arts. They are often, partially works of art. Well made documentaries are made in such a way to keep you engaged. They can be famously slow. Some documentaries sometimes as some high stake question, and then make a dramatic pause, of 15, 20 or even more seconds, allowing the viewers to ponder the question while showing them scenes from nature, or space, or whatever, and only then they deliver the answer. When I watch a good documentary, I'm really pulled in and engaged. There's a lot of suspense. I can sometimes feel adrenaline, I can feel existential anxiety if it's about something highly consequential. They can make huge impact. Sometimes they are densely packed with information, but in most of the cases the pace is more sane. Documentaries vs. video essays = documentaries win.

Finally let's compare video essays with classical essays. I notice 2 key differences, and in both classical essays win. The first is that classical essays typically explore just a single idea in depth. They go deep and not so broad. They dedicate a lot of effort on idea development, argumentation and proving their point. They want to convince you they are right. They carefully build a case for something. Or offer a certain perspective on something. Unlike them video essays seem to typically be broader than they are deep. Video essays often provide a lot of background information - they try to be educational, and not just opinion pieces - and they touch many tangents. The key idea of a video essay is often quite brief and not very deeply defended. But they spend 40 minutes or more talking about tangents and adjacent stuff. This feels like info-dumping because all that adjacent stuff can't be just casually mentioned... many of these deserve attention in their own right and could be a topic of a separate video. The second difference is simply in format. Classical essays are written, video essays are spoken. When it comes to intellectually demanding materials, writing is superior. When you read a classical essay you read it at your own pace. You can stop and think. You can underline key ideas. You can go back and re-read something if it wasn't clear or if you want to remind yourself of it. All of this is much harder with video essays. Yes, you can rewind... but doing this kind of sucks and spoils the experience. So, by both criteria video essays vs. classical essays = classical essays win.

Now as I said at the beginning, this doesn't mean that I have something against video essays or want to see them gone. I would just like to see some changes in trends.

In particular, I would like to see the following:

1. More unscripted video essays in which people just speak their mind, and not read the script.

2. Essays that go more in depth, rather than going too broad and tangential. (Depth > Breadth)

3. This goes without saying but pace should be slower.

4. Less aggressive editing. You don't need to edit out every pause or every slightest mistakes. It's OK to say "uhm..." Or "actually, what I meant is this".

Now this critique is not just about video essays per se, but it could also be applied to YouTube in general.

Many YouTubers even those who don't make long video essays, make videos that suffer from all those same problems. And to them all the same advice applies.

The cause for all of these negative trends is probably the algorithm that favors content with more frenetic pace. But probably there are other factors as well, such as lack of confidence. It's easier to read the script than to talk from your head. People are self-conscious about small mistakes.

But I think both things can and should be fought against and not just accepted with resignation.

Especially large and established creators already have faithful audience, and so they are less at the whim of algorithm. They have also already built reputation so they don't need to be as self-conscious.

If they followed my advice they could set new trends, new precedents that could push the genre of video essays and YouTube videos in general, into a saner direction.