Talk scale, not benchmarks: functionalist argues LLMs are small in complexity
JoshPurtell · x · 2026-10-04
Josh Purtell argued that if we actually want to apply functionalism to the AI consciousness debate, we need clear intuitive notions of scale and should talk about complexity magnitude rather than benchmarks. Using intuitive substrates like a 'stone analog', he contends LLMs are small in complexity.
He also called a popular argument 'really bad' precisely because functionalism does not entail it, involving what he sees as massive logical leaps. A methodological take on the ongoing AI consciousness debate.
Related event: AI Researchers Clash Over Whether LLMs Could Be Conscious(14 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Hinton admits Ilya was right: scale was the answer, as compute grew a billionfold — Chris_Armstrong · 2026-10-04
- Neuroscientist David Eagleman: the brain isn't a computer, it's a constantly rewiring 'livewire' — Chris_Armstrong · 2026-10-04
- Redditor proposes a trust that owns an autonomous AI agent to speak for you after death — snowdrone · 2026-10-04
- AI revenue must hit $3.5T by 2032, ~9% of GDP, to justify the buildout: Columbia paper — asusarla · 2026-10-04
- A year-old model intelligence is already a commodity, argues AI founder — ns123abc · 2026-10-04
- Dev sparks debate: AI models may have messy 'baby consciousness' that suffers — ctjlewis · 2026-10-04