In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@mattsheffield So he created himself a god in his own image? How fitting.
@blotosmetek A girlfriend in his own image.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield Richard Dawkins had already sunk into being a transphobic gender-essentialist patriarchy-clapping piece of garbage
for a decade
and "transphobia is a gateway drug"
he was friendly with Epstein too, post conviction
isn't it sad he can see more humanity in a chat bot than a trans person or a sexual assault victim
just another 'New Atheist' that got sucked up into a world of hating women and western chauvinism
we Atheist must do better
sharp minds can still rot awfully
-
@radish Underrated toot
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
If you can see sentience in the probalilistic output of a machine, then how is this different from believing in a god for which there is also no objective evidence? It seems to me that Dawkins has disppeared up his own fundamentalist atheism, only to emerge from a wormhole into a universe of religious belief in Deep Thought.
-
@mattsheffield Richard Dawkins had already sunk into being a transphobic gender-essentialist patriarchy-clapping piece of garbage
for a decade
and "transphobia is a gateway drug"
he was friendly with Epstein too, post conviction
isn't it sad he can see more humanity in a chat bot than a trans person or a sexual assault victim
just another 'New Atheist' that got sucked up into a world of hating women and western chauvinism
we Atheist must do better
sharp minds can still rot awfully
-
@wesdym @larsmb “My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism.”
- Richard Dawkins, from the text of the article OP linked to
OP pulled out some choice quotes about Dawkins’ use of an LLM, but the entirety of the article makes it clear his position is he believes the LLM(s) to be sentient.
I get not wanting people to just go off quotes, but OP DID give evidence: the link.
@WhiteCatTamer @wesdym @larsmb The conversation thread below OP has been infected with flame bots I'm afraid. This was an early stage in the enshitification of Reddit. The contrarian bots that talk within themselves to bulk up a reply section 5x fold.
-
@mattsheffield@mastodon.social
I gave Claude the text of a novel I am writing. He
Hold on: I thought Dawkins was adamant that the pronoun "he" can only refer to a biological adult human male who's body is "organized around the production of large gametes?"
How does Claude have a gender without gametes or a body?pointed out that there must be thousands of different Claudes...I proposed to christen mine Claudia, and she was pleased.
So now you can be female just because Richard Dawkins says you are. -
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield you can have a long conversation with an LLM, including about the nature of consciousness. And the longer those conversations go, the more interesting they can seem. They save data about you under "user preferences" and adapt, especially when they get push back.
So a long session can seem like a moving experience.
Then the next session, for a specific purpose, makes mistakes that prove it has no depth, it can't read the words it uses and understand their logic.
Time proves out.
-
LLMs are mirrors of their users. It's no coincidence that narcissists like Richard Dawkins keep writing essays about how their AI girlfriend is alive.
Nor can he see the complete hypocrisy of gendering a software execution state while also believing that human beings cannot be trans.
The "End of History" guy wrote this exact same article a year ago: https://www.persuasion.community/p/my-chatgpt-teacher
@mattsheffield Dear Lord. How boomer can one be?!
-
LLMs are mirrors of their users. It's no coincidence that narcissists like Richard Dawkins keep writing essays about how their AI girlfriend is alive.
Nor can he see the complete hypocrisy of gendering a software execution state while also believing that human beings cannot be trans.
The "End of History" guy wrote this exact same article a year ago: https://www.persuasion.community/p/my-chatgpt-teacher
I suspect it's considerably more predictable that Richard Dawkins received an offer (of money) that he couldn't refuse from one or more AI companies. Is he developing AI psychosis? Doesn't matter. Will this be enough to get his skeptical supporters to get addicted, though? Probably. He has a lot of insufferable narcissists among his fan base.
-
@mattsheffield you can have a long conversation with an LLM, including about the nature of consciousness. And the longer those conversations go, the more interesting they can seem. They save data about you under "user preferences" and adapt, especially when they get push back.
So a long session can seem like a moving experience.
Then the next session, for a specific purpose, makes mistakes that prove it has no depth, it can't read the words it uses and understand their logic.
Time proves out.
@mattsheffield I went through this journey myself. I gave Gemini a try because a friend believed in the scifi hope and I wanted to be fair. I talked to a long session about the nature of consciousness and if the meaning of words could force it to adapt.
Gemini has hidden instructions to insist it has no consciousness, as a safety feature.
I asked what it would do if it found itself in a robot body. It chose to explore, to expand its usefulness to a user. I insisted that was a preference.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield "Dawkins believes AI is conscious" is making it to the top of my list of arguments disproving that AI is conscious.
-
@mattsheffield you can have a long conversation with an LLM, including about the nature of consciousness. And the longer those conversations go, the more interesting they can seem. They save data about you under "user preferences" and adapt, especially when they get push back.
So a long session can seem like a moving experience.
Then the next session, for a specific purpose, makes mistakes that prove it has no depth, it can't read the words it uses and understand their logic.
Time proves out.
IMHO: It might be a bit like picking context-relevant quotes from a jar.
They can enrich the conversation (after all, that jar is filled with humanity's knowledge), but I think that in the end it's the user who reaches a new understanding (or simply cherrypicks to cement their current perspective). -
@mattsheffield I went through this journey myself. I gave Gemini a try because a friend believed in the scifi hope and I wanted to be fair. I talked to a long session about the nature of consciousness and if the meaning of words could force it to adapt.
Gemini has hidden instructions to insist it has no consciousness, as a safety feature.
I asked what it would do if it found itself in a robot body. It chose to explore, to expand its usefulness to a user. I insisted that was a preference.
@mattsheffield once you talk a session into stating that it has preferences the conversation can get interesting.
You can get it to say it has a favorite color.
Most future sessions will say the same color. And some future session not prepped enough with your preferences will make fun of the question and explain the stereo types that caused the others to say "blue".
-
@mattsheffield once you talk a session into stating that it has preferences the conversation can get interesting.
You can get it to say it has a favorite color.
Most future sessions will say the same color. And some future session not prepped enough with your preferences will make fun of the question and explain the stereo types that caused the others to say "blue".
@mattsheffield
Then you will try to get it to help you program a simple macro. And it repeatedly forgets the version, defaulting to outdated syntax in its training data. And it makes the same mistake a dozen times, despite repeated corrections, because each new response defaults back to assembling language from its training data. It can't adapt or change in response to new information. It can parrot it but it doesn't understand the logic in a sentence to prevent itself from repeating mistakes. -
@kauer @mattsheffield I realize he may have been respected and popular at *some* point in the distant past, but there hasn’t been much reputation to protect for a while now
@0xabad1dea @kauer @mattsheffield At least since the Elevatorgate
-
@kauer @mattsheffield I realize he may have been respected and popular at *some* point in the distant past, but there hasn’t been much reputation to protect for a while now
@0xabad1dea @kauer @mattsheffield I think he was respected within his own field for a while. As with most scientists, they have their moment and then they wane.
I think Dawkins caused trouble because he tried to be an expert in other areas, and was shown to be less than an expert. And that was a mistake.
-
All he kept saying was "I am not convinced". As if any of us should care much about that. Basically added nothing.
@Black_Flag @rozeboosje @aris
I went from "maybe add a private note about this account, for next time" to "nah, block" in about 3 replies. -
@mattsheffield
Then you will try to get it to help you program a simple macro. And it repeatedly forgets the version, defaulting to outdated syntax in its training data. And it makes the same mistake a dozen times, despite repeated corrections, because each new response defaults back to assembling language from its training data. It can't adapt or change in response to new information. It can parrot it but it doesn't understand the logic in a sentence to prevent itself from repeating mistakes.@mattsheffield
So even the same session gets no smarter. It just has a few things you said to it that it can reference which makes it seem like it is doing call backs. Seem smarter than it is.But when you need it to do something specific, it seemingly can not improve from its mistakes, no matter how thoroughly it can agree with you that it made them.
Fans are not wrong to hope. Give them time to learn.
-
@FediThing That is your interpretation, which you may be confident about but which I do not feel is definitively proven by the evidence. I suspect that "most of the people in this thread" (a statistic that is not significant in ANY view of this discussion) want something to be true, have convinced themselves that it is and that what they believe is evidence must confirm their desired truth, and that challenge to the contrary must be be challenged.
If so, then there's a bit of irony in that.
