In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@rozeboosje "I'm better and smarter than that scientist guy!"
Okay, you go.
@wesdym @rozeboosje Is it your argument that because Dawkins was once a scientist no one gets to question, doubt or challenge him? Are there no other scientists? Are all social media users peons in comparison? Can no one else have an insight? Remarkable if true.
-
@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 Yes. And that's how they always thought about it.
-
@Lazarou @Kierkegaanks @mattsheffield
"What is consciousness for?"
I would think that as an evolutionary biologist, he should know full well that consciousness isn't for anything. There are religious beliefs which contradict that, and I am fine with folks thinking that consciousness has arisen due to the machinations of a higher power: sometimes I lie awake at night and muse over it, as one does. But Richard Dawkins, as one of the much vaunted New Atheists, should not believe that there is a purpose or a reason behind consciousness. It simply is, and evolution does not act to create it with logic or intent.Unless he has something he'd like to tell us, of course.
[ETA: Of all the people out there, of course, there's also the fact that an ostensible skeptic should know that the appearance of a thing is not the thing. He is accepting a creation at face value, granting miracles to the seemingly miraculous, forgetting that every burning bush has, so far, had a guy with a lighter nearby.]
@theogrin @Lazarou @Kierkegaanks @mattsheffield Dawkins has never been any sort of philosophical thinker. He often comes across like a 6 year old having thoughts for the first time... And never getting any further.
-
@mattsheffield if the mirror is not conscious, then what is consciousness for?
@mattsheffield keep coming back to this in my head. never mind the LLM bollocks, "what is consciousness for?" is a really stupid thing for an atheist to say?
roads are for transportation. pizza is for eating. rings are for your fingers. all these things are for something because someone designed them that way.
what is a tree for? weather? consciousness? surely if you're an atheist the answer has to be "they're not FOR anything"?
-
@mattsheffield I had negative a physical reaction when reading that. Dawkins is a jerk of a person, but a very intelligent jerk. Or so I thought.
@bit101 @mattsheffield A person who can be that stupid is probably no genius anywhere else either. I personally never thought he was smart even when he restricted himself to science conversations. He always expects people to believe him on his authority.
-
@mattsheffield Conscience is such a meaningless word. It's something humans invented to put us above animals.
@Sibshops @mattsheffield Unfortunately that doesn't work because the former inhabitants of this planet generally believed the forest itself was alive. It didn't put us among the animals. It made us one with them. Now if you say some religious folks gave us consciousness so they could imagine that death was no escape from divine retribution you may have a point.
-
@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@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.
-
@wesdym@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.@m0xEE I have no idea what you're trying to say. Did you bother to proof your own writing before committing it?
Anyway, no one who confuses tiny cartoons with adult discourse is worth taking seriously in anything but kids' threads.
-
@wesdym@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.@m0xEE You should have enough respect for others, respect for yourself, and aspirations to apply good reason to real-life issues and situations to consider that most adult discussions are worthy of good forensics.
Have you asked yourself how the world got to be the way it is right now? Because this is a very big part of the answer.
I'm sorry that you don't have that mindset now, but I hope -- for your sake and everyone's -- that you will develop it.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield Long response. Sorry, there is a point. I hope it helps.
I'm genuinely surprised by the conceptual weakness of Dawkins's sense of self. For me, consciousness is, at its root, modelling—that is, supporting and adjusting models—worlds in miniature—which we examine to help us predict and respond to the real world. These models are only approximate, but, hopefully, good enough. Simpler animals maintain simpler models.
One of the mysteries of consciousness emerges from the need to place a model of ourselves inside our models of the world. (What would I do if…?) Inside model me there may need to be a model of model me… (How would I feel if…?) Very quickly, the detail disappears: so it's hard to see yourself with any degree of fidelity.
By my understanding, Dawkins is failing to perceive that, to be conscious, you need to maintain a model or models of yourself in the world (and models of yourself modelling the world!), not just to produce words that claim that you do so.
Claude does not maintain a persistent model of itself. Dawkins is mistaking appearance for internal structure, like mistaking a mirror image for a living being, just because it moves.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield The Claude Delusion
-
@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.
@wesdym you’re not making all that much sense either (as in, I understand your point but not your angle, unless you’re here to argue in favour of fashtech, which I really can’t be arsed to bother with)
-
@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
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield i have found this article rather iluminating and properly named LLMentalism
https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/llmentalist/ -
@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 I didn't mean to imply any sort of defense with my post.
He's clearly been drifting of the (transphobic) deep end for many years. Just that it now seems his brain is failing even worse.
-
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
"I fed my novel into it and somehow it started talking in fancy words just like i do! How surprising!"I see he's still in the first part of the FAFO timeline.
-
@wesdym @rozeboosje Is it your argument that because Dawkins was once a scientist no one gets to question, doubt or challenge him? Are there no other scientists? Are all social media users peons in comparison? Can no one else have an insight? Remarkable if true.
@Black_Flag @wesdym@mastodon.social @rozeboosje That "WesDym" replied more than 50 times in this thread. I think he's the "better and smarter than everyone in this thread" guy. Block him and go on, nothing of value lost.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield couldn't have happened to a nicer person lol.
Let's start counting down till 'grandpa left grandma for AI and left the house to Anthropic in his will' headlines start popping up worldwide.
-
@Black_Flag @wesdym@mastodon.social @rozeboosje That "WesDym" replied more than 50 times in this thread. I think he's the "better and smarter than everyone in this thread" guy. Block him and go on, nothing of value lost.
Don't worry, I did. A person who had removed himself from discussion by being convinced he knew better.
-
@mattsheffield Long response. Sorry, there is a point. I hope it helps.
I'm genuinely surprised by the conceptual weakness of Dawkins's sense of self. For me, consciousness is, at its root, modelling—that is, supporting and adjusting models—worlds in miniature—which we examine to help us predict and respond to the real world. These models are only approximate, but, hopefully, good enough. Simpler animals maintain simpler models.
One of the mysteries of consciousness emerges from the need to place a model of ourselves inside our models of the world. (What would I do if…?) Inside model me there may need to be a model of model me… (How would I feel if…?) Very quickly, the detail disappears: so it's hard to see yourself with any degree of fidelity.
By my understanding, Dawkins is failing to perceive that, to be conscious, you need to maintain a model or models of yourself in the world (and models of yourself modelling the world!), not just to produce words that claim that you do so.
Claude does not maintain a persistent model of itself. Dawkins is mistaking appearance for internal structure, like mistaking a mirror image for a living being, just because it moves.
@lowtech Dawkins is a computational functionalist so he believes in only focusing on external behaviors, which makes him prone to the errors you cite.
I have a larger philosophical-scientific framework that describes what you are talking about in further detail.
FWIW, this is an introductory essay: https://flux.community/matthew-sheffield/2026/01/its-like-this-why-perceptions-are-our-realities/
And this is the full framework: https://flux.community/eft/glossary.pdf
