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.
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.
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.