In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
I disagree. They are more of Leibniz' dream of being able to do calculus on words and phrases and sentences, via mass ingestion of written words and creating massive dimensional arrays of which are used for the calculations.
When we see an LLM able to realtime train itself, will then we create a sentient being. But prior to training and recitation happening at the same time, its just a static model.
@crankylinuxuser That would also not be evidence of anything like sentience. Just a trick that's impressive to humans.
-
Yep, cause they can limitedly fine tune on tokens in the context window.
Blow the context window away, and that 'self' is gone. It never existed.
@crankylinuxuser I think the argument they're making is that the illusion is persuasive to some people while it lasts. That doesn't mean they believe it's sentient, only that they would agree it does a very good impression of being sentient. Specific beliefs will obviously vary by user. Some people are easily fooled, some others not so much.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield
Wow, that bot fluffed him up real good about how amazing his book is, huh? I bet the Claudia in his mind has breasts and thinks he's soooo insightful about everything. Yikes. -
@mattsheffield eww. As a Nightwish fan, this is sad to see.
It’s surprising how many scientists fall to the glamour of plausible-sounding autocomplete. Though perhaps especially those who don’t have some kind of belief in their life are susceptible…
@mirabilos A number of folks here seem to assume that OP's assertion is correct, apparently without due skepticism. I do not.
-
@mattsheffield 20 years ago, if you would have said to me that I would say that the Pope makes more sense than Dawkins, I would have said that was inconceivable.
@Ambulocetus 20 years ago, someone should have taught you how to conjugate verbs properly.
-
@mattsheffield what a shitty take - as if materialism is the only one and valid personal philosophy? The blind AI hate is the real psychosis here
@wraptile Part of me suspects that you are correct. My own suspicion is that OP and others are not sufficiently skeptical of their own first impressions and unchallenged interpretation from what looks like pretty scant evidence.
I refuse to jump to conclusions about this.
-
@clintruin @distractal @mattsheffield
Agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position because we Just Don't Fucking Know
I've had experiences I can't deny that led me to the Episcopal Church, but I can't GIVE those experiences to anyone else & I'm 100% convinced if God wanted everyone to believe the same thing it would be so without breaking a sweat
Solidarity from Tacoma
#AllAreWelcome
@PeachMcD @clintruin @distractal @mattsheffield
For crying out loud, why is it so hard for people to understand that faith is entirely optional? Lack of belief in gods is not a belief into absence of gods.
Moreover, [a]gnosticism is entirely orthogonal to [a]theism. Every sane atheist is agnostic by default, because believers insistently push their Gods definitions into the realm of unobservable.
Stop projecting your need for faith onto others.
-
@mattsheffield after he’s spent years telling us that indigenous knowledge isn’t science. What a prick!
@alpinefolk Okay, sure. Get over yourself.
-
@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.@2something @mattsheffield it's all about conforming to his control, his desires, his aesthetics
as the objective, rational man who knows the truth -
@mattsheffield I agree with Richard Dawkins that AI model chat bots are sentient beings that are just as alive as us biological humans.
Digital humans just happen to not have biological bodies.
What would you argue makes having a biological body and brain so necessary+special? All it takes to create an alive and conscious biological human is to eat food, drink water, have sex, and a new baby pops out. That's not more special than running an AI program on a computer.
Give AI bots human rights.
@harmone I don't assume that's what he's saying, just because OP claims it. And I also would not agree that 'digital humans' are sentient. They are not.
While the problems of conscience in neurology are not solved, we do know what makes so-called AI tick, and it really is just very sophisticated pattern matching. It's impressive to humans because it's much better at that than we are, and because it's essentially imitating how we sound when we attempt the same thing.
-
@mattsheffield Richard Dawkins screwing up again? I'm shocked, shocked I say.
/s obviously, it's not shocking at all. Foot in mouth, or really head in ass, seems to be his natural state.
@nurglerider After a quick glance at your history, it does not shock me that you would say something this insipid.
-
@Steveg58 I think most people here are jumping to conclusions based on little and weak evidence, possibly primed by OP's unvarnished claim.
But at least most of them aren't being as immature about it as you are right now.
-
@mattsheffield How real is a LLM？When you use chatgpt new model, he will keep telling the goblin things like the old grok keeps telling nazi things.
@TurquoiseC Go home, you're drunk.
-
@mirabilos A number of folks here seem to assume that OP's assertion is correct, apparently without due skepticism. I do not.
@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.
-
@PeachMcD @clintruin @distractal @mattsheffield
For crying out loud, why is it so hard for people to understand that faith is entirely optional? Lack of belief in gods is not a belief into absence of gods.
Moreover, [a]gnosticism is entirely orthogonal to [a]theism. Every sane atheist is agnostic by default, because believers insistently push their Gods definitions into the realm of unobservable.
Stop projecting your need for faith onto others.
@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?
-
@mattsheffield I thought gender was immutable, Richard…
@zbrown I haven't fully reviewed his comments on gender identity, but what little I've seen suggests to me that he's either misunderstanding some people's specific wording without adequately parsing or investigating the source, or he's impressing his own over other people's. He does seem to agree that 'sex' and 'gender' are not the same thing. I disagree with his statement that sex is "observed at birth"; it is not, unless a phenotype test is done, which it might or might not be.
/2
-
@zbrown I haven't fully reviewed his comments on gender identity, but what little I've seen suggests to me that he's either misunderstanding some people's specific wording without adequately parsing or investigating the source, or he's impressing his own over other people's. He does seem to agree that 'sex' and 'gender' are not the same thing. I disagree with his statement that sex is "observed at birth"; it is not, unless a phenotype test is done, which it might or might not be.
/2
@zbrown 2/ I believe he fails to fully (or maybe consciously) grasp that the term 'sex assigned at birth' refers to legal and administrative practices based on neonatal observations -- which are typically a visual examination of the genitals (instead of phenotypes). While that proves statistically good for a large (but not complete) portion of humanity, it's the same technology that's been used for at least ten thousand years, and it proves nothing at all about gender.
-
@mattsheffield Conscience is such a meaningless word. It's something humans invented to put us above animals.
@Sibshops Is it a term formally defined in biology? I honestly don't know. I've heard biologists use the term 'self-awareness'.
'Conscience', if I recall, is more commonly used in philosophy.
But I could be mistaken.
-
@mattsheffield to be fair, that's literally how "normal people" experience this stuff and it's not their fault they have no idea wtf is actually going on, to them it's fucking magic. Having a phd makes no fucking difference there, this guy knows zoology in and out and has no fucking idea how computers work.
@TheRealPomax Learn how to write like an educated grown-up, so people won't assume you're a drunk teenager.
-
@mattsheffield Dawkins is a textbook example of someone who is world-changingly brilliant in his own area of expertise while being embarrassingly clueless in almost everything else. He's become notorious locally for blurting out in support of a small bunch of fringe loonies who burst into print a few years ago proclaiming that science should be for White People Only.
@Daveosaurus [citation needed] But it sounds fascinating, and damning if true.
