Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
atheism
272 Indlæg 137 Posters 1.9k Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

    In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

    Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

    #atheism

    feral_3d@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
    feral_3d@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
    feral_3d@mastodon.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #202

    @mattsheffield crinkly. This makes me feel extremely embarrassed for him. I'm worried all lonely seniors in care homes will spend their final years with çhatgpt like this.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

      In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

      Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

      #atheism

      blotosmetek@circumstances.runB This user is from outside of this forum
      blotosmetek@circumstances.runB This user is from outside of this forum
      blotosmetek@circumstances.run
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #203

      @mattsheffield So he created himself a god in his own image? How fitting.

      mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • erikcats@dice.campE This user is from outside of this forum
        erikcats@dice.campE This user is from outside of this forum
        erikcats@dice.camp
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #204

        @kauer hehehe true

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • blotosmetek@circumstances.runB blotosmetek@circumstances.run

          @mattsheffield So he created himself a god in his own image? How fitting.

          mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
          mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
          mattsheffield@mastodon.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #205

          @blotosmetek A girlfriend in his own image.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

            In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

            Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

            #atheism

            normjess@tech.lgbtN This user is from outside of this forum
            normjess@tech.lgbtN This user is from outside of this forum
            normjess@tech.lgbt
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #206

            @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

            alexadeswift@lgbtqia.spaceA 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • radish@woof.techR radish@woof.tech

              @mattsheffield

              compfu@mograph.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
              compfu@mograph.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
              compfu@mograph.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #207

              @radish Underrated toot

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

                In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

                Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

                #atheism

                riggbeck@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                riggbeck@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                riggbeck@mastodon.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #208

                @mattsheffield

                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.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • normjess@tech.lgbtN normjess@tech.lgbt

                  @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

                  alexadeswift@lgbtqia.spaceA This user is from outside of this forum
                  alexadeswift@lgbtqia.spaceA This user is from outside of this forum
                  alexadeswift@lgbtqia.space
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #209

                  @normjess

                  He is an awful piece of shit, and even less relevant

                  @mattsheffield

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • whitecattamer@mastodon.onlineW whitecattamer@mastodon.online

                    @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.

                    overtondoors@infosec.exchangeO This user is from outside of this forum
                    overtondoors@infosec.exchangeO This user is from outside of this forum
                    overtondoors@infosec.exchange
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #210

                    @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.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • 2something@transfem.social2 2something@transfem.social

                      @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.

                      infrapink@mastodon.ieI This user is from outside of this forum
                      infrapink@mastodon.ieI This user is from outside of this forum
                      infrapink@mastodon.ie
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #211

                      @2something @mattsheffield 😆

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

                        In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

                        Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

                        #atheism

                        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                        urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #212

                        @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.

                        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU wakame@tech.lgbtW 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

                          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

                          christianjaeh@mathstodon.xyzC This user is from outside of this forum
                          christianjaeh@mathstodon.xyzC This user is from outside of this forum
                          christianjaeh@mathstodon.xyz
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #213

                          @mattsheffield Dear Lord. How boomer can one be?!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

                            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

                            angiebaby@mas.toA This user is from outside of this forum
                            angiebaby@mas.toA This user is from outside of this forum
                            angiebaby@mas.to
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #214

                            @mattsheffield

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                              @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.

                              urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                              urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                              urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #215

                              @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.

                              urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • mattsheffield@mastodon.socialM mattsheffield@mastodon.social

                                In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.

                                Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9

                                #atheism

                                cazencott@lipn.infoC This user is from outside of this forum
                                cazencott@lipn.infoC This user is from outside of this forum
                                cazencott@lipn.info
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #216

                                @mattsheffield "Dawkins believes AI is conscious" is making it to the top of my list of arguments disproving that AI is conscious.

                                apophis@yourwalls.todayA 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                                  @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.

                                  wakame@tech.lgbtW This user is from outside of this forum
                                  wakame@tech.lgbtW This user is from outside of this forum
                                  wakame@tech.lgbt
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #217

                                  @Urban_Hermit @mattsheffield

                                  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).

                                  bunny@mk.absturztau.beB 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                                    @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.

                                    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                    urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #218

                                    @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".

                                    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                                      @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".

                                      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                      urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #219

                                      @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.

                                      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                        @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

                                        rhelune@todon.euR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        rhelune@todon.euR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        rhelune@todon.eu
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #220

                                        @0xabad1dea @kauer @mattsheffield At least since the Elevatorgate

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                          @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

                                          steveclough@metalhead.clubS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          steveclough@metalhead.clubS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          steveclough@metalhead.club
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #221

                                          @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.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper