In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@mattsheffield I've said it before... Prof. Dawkins should have stayed in his lane. As a writer, making biology accessible, explaining how evolution works so someone with no scientific background could get a decent handle on it, he was fantastic. But as an atheist, as a user of information technology, his grasp of the concepts is at best rudimentary. In those areas he is the Dunning-Kruger effect personified.
@rozeboosje "I'm better and smarter than that scientist guy!"
Okay, you go.
-
@mattsheffield He's also 85 and ... uh ... age comes for us all, and our minds. That surely doesn't help.
@larsmb Indeed. And that's a real posibility, and also not an unlikely one. But I don't personally find OP's evidence conclusive and damning. Yet pretty much everyone in this thread seems to.
There's a small irony to that, maybe.
-
@FediThing Being an asshole, or even a criminal, doesn't prove OP's allegations based on the evidence provided.
I'm genuinely surprised at the lack of skepticism in this thread? Are people just afraid of being judged by total strangers for admitting the evidence is weak?
Or, perhaps ironically, are they committing the same error they assume Dawkins has made?
I honestly don't know. This thread raises fascinating questions.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
The older he gets the more listening to him is like using 40grit sandpaper to wipe my arse
-
@slotos @PeachMcD @distractal @mattsheffield
"...because believers insistently push their Gods definitions into the realm of unobservable."
It's interesting, right? I've seen atheists argue with the fervency of the evangelical that THERE IS NO GOD(s).Clearly these people have faith.
Perhaps this is what you mean by "sane atheist" being agnostic by default?
@clintruin @PeachMcD @distractal @mattsheffield
A sizable chunk of vocal atheists I saw online were young and hurt by religious folks. They _need_ the God to not exist, because to them the God is evil. In a very practical sense.
I, personally, will argue that the strategy of keeping God unknowable implicitly keeps him irrelevant. I don’t care if God exists, but if he does, he has a lot to answer for.
As an aside, do note that most believers fervently deny existence of „wrong” gods.
-
@mattsheffield Agreed. The ongoing joke amongst certain religions is that atheism is a religion, which I disagree with, but certain forms of atheism do feel cultlike, which I suspect leads to eager adherence to anything with even a veneer of "empowering the self"
Add to this the kind of "immature atheism" (I've been there) which is really just "I'm angry at religion and my former deity and need to prove it" and you have a potent combo.
@distractal The term gets knocked around and bruised a lot, but in strictly formal logic, so-called 'hard' atheism (the forthright assertion that gods do not exist) makes unprovable claims which in some ways do mirror the claims typically associated with theism.
It is provable for certain strict definitions of 'gods'.
But I don't really believe that most self-described atheists are so hard about it. I think most of us are more in the Roddenberry / Einstein / Spinoza vein of strong agnosticism.
-
@mattsheffield It's a reminder that rejecting one bad idea doesn't immunize us from all bad ideas.
@nantucketlit Absolutely. I am not yet persuaded that the scant evidence presented proves OP's assertion, however. However horrible or stupid Dawkins might be, anyone claiming to respect science must demand better, in my opinion. Some purple prose falls short of confession, at least for me.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield TIL I am smarter than an evolutionary biologist with honorary doctorates from at least ten universities.
-
@wesdym The debate: https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/11/17/royal-society-investigation-into-matauranga-maori-letter-sparks-academic-debate/ The dawkins: https://web.archive.org/web/20211219203411/https://richarddawkins.net/2021/12/myths-do-not-belong-in-science-classes-letter-to-the-royal-society-of-new-zealand/
@Daveosaurus Thank you, I appreciate the link.
(As an aside, I recently find it difficult to take the Royal Society too seriously. Ancient as they are, they haven't kicked Musk out yet, so their self-righteous outrage rings hollow to me.)
The controversy seems to carelessly conflate a number of over-lapping things, instead of starting by developing a consensus on the meaning of the word 'science', as it rationally must.
I find no support here for your statement as you worded it, I'm sorry.
-
@wesdym it’s sufficient that he uses the fashtech machine for crossing a line. The OP’s assertion is then already confirmed by him “talking” to it.
@mirabilos If it's sufficient for you, then it is. I would call your forensics weak, however.
People have been wrongly hanged over evidence better than this.
-
@MidniteMikeWrites Thanks. Yes it's very unfortunate that people often reify scientific description.
Causation, solidity, color, and anything we can perceive about other people or objects are all enacted by our own minds.
Dawkins, being a narcissist, does not see other minds as fully real unless they are obsequious to him. And since chatbots are great at user flattery, this was enough.
@mattsheffield This comment is just childish, and beneath you.
At least, I certainly HOPE that it's beneath you.
-
@distractal The term gets knocked around and bruised a lot, but in strictly formal logic, so-called 'hard' atheism (the forthright assertion that gods do not exist) makes unprovable claims which in some ways do mirror the claims typically associated with theism.
It is provable for certain strict definitions of 'gods'.
But I don't really believe that most self-described atheists are so hard about it. I think most of us are more in the Roddenberry / Einstein / Spinoza vein of strong agnosticism.
@wesdym @distractal As a poly i find this whole proof thing so funny. Like wdym gods aren't real, I have mulitple in my living room...? and yo, money laws and nations states are just as real as gods. Some people belive in them hard enough to kill you for those things, that makes them pretty real.
-
@larsmb Indeed. And that's a real posibility, and also not an unlikely one. But I don't personally find OP's evidence conclusive and damning. Yet pretty much everyone in this thread seems to.
There's a small irony to that, maybe.
@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.
-
@mirabilos If it's sufficient for you, then it is. I would call your forensics weak, however.
People have been wrongly hanged over evidence better than this.
@wesdym feel free to dig out what evidence you need for him “talking” to a slop machine. If you find sufficient, feel free to share here.
-
@wesdym @distractal As a poly i find this whole proof thing so funny. Like wdym gods aren't real, I have mulitple in my living room...? and yo, money laws and nations states are just as real as gods. Some people belive in them hard enough to kill you for those things, that makes them pretty real.
@KarlHeinzHasliP 'Gods' (or at least most popular notions of what they are) are indeed powerful articles of faith, as nations and (accepted) currencies are, with real effect from human agency based on belief. People have killed over all of those. I would liken the others to consensus, however, while religion posits claims which cannot be scientifically disproven, because they are defined in terms science cannot address. (E.g., 'My god is invisible to your instruments.')
-
@kagan However much of a jerk he might be -- and I'm certainly not saying he's NOT a jerk, believe me -- I'm not presently persuaded that OP is necessarily correct. This whole thread is quite a pile-on, but the evidence seems.. well, I don't think it would hold up in court, I'll put it that way. I think a lot of people want it to be true because they don't like him. But being an asshole wouldn't make it more likely to be true.
@wesdym "The evidence" for what? That he's in AI psychosis? Or that he wrote "Dear Muslima", which was the thing that put him way beyond my giving-a-shit radius?
To be quite clear, I don't give a shit if he's in AI psychosis or not, because (as I was trying to make clear in my previous post), IDGAF about him anymore. Not after his abominable reaction to Rebecca Watson's very reasonable point that being a creep to a woman when she can't get away is, well, creepy.
-
@wesdym feel free to dig out what evidence you need for him “talking” to a slop machine. If you find sufficient, feel free to share here.
@mirabilos You're not making sense. You also seem to be making unfounded assumptions about what I think.
Pointing out that evidence is insufficient doesn't mean I have any particular thoughts about it myself. I would hope that most legal adults don't need to have that explained to them.
-
@crankylinuxuser That would also not be evidence of anything like sentience. Just a trick that's impressive to humans.
If done on a stage we call this magic. The magician doesn't have to have done the thing they say they have on the stage but if you think they have then the trick is just as good.
-
@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 I don't see any need to waste my time with it.
I never said I do or not believe the man is mad. I have no opinion. I only said the evidence is weak. You don't seem to agree that's true for the pull quotes, so I'm unpersuaded from your argument that I should invest yet more effort on my own part for others' behalf. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if it's true, or what anyone here thinks about me. I just want people to use better forensics than I'm seeing here.
-
@wesdym "The evidence" for what? That he's in AI psychosis? Or that he wrote "Dear Muslima", which was the thing that put him way beyond my giving-a-shit radius?
To be quite clear, I don't give a shit if he's in AI psychosis or not, because (as I was trying to make clear in my previous post), IDGAF about him anymore. Not after his abominable reaction to Rebecca Watson's very reasonable point that being a creep to a woman when she can't get away is, well, creepy.
@kagan I would hope that everyone here cares about the value of evidence, forensics, and the scientific method. Otherwise, there's not much point to stating any position on religion.
