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

[mattsheffield@mastodon.social]

@MisuseCase

[distractal@hachyderm.io]

@mattsheffield Seems like a foreseeable outcome for ego-driven atheism.

[mattsheffield@mastodon.social]

@distractal Yes. Although even plenty of non-egotistical atheists fall for these delusions because they don't understand that causation is a projection of human minds and that all meaning is enacted.

[distractal@hachyderm.io]

@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.

[urbanfoxe@mastodon.ie]

@mattsheffield a relative with bipolar was using it for a while during an episode and now they are stable realize it was literally feeding their paranoia and amplifying their intrusive thoughts. It's dangerous.

[midnitemikewrites@zirk.us]

@mattsheffield This is such a good insight. It’s one that pops up in a lot too, if I’m not misunderstanding it.

Naïve epistemologies like “scientism” can end up not understanding the integrated relationship between perception and the mind, even though we tend to separate these.

In other fields something similar happens where formal models end up replacing the complexity of the underlying reality being modeled. Noticing this is what got me interested in philosophy.

[cyberwitch@goingdark.social]

@mattsheffield talk about gasoline on a fire!

[larsmb@mastodon.online]

@mattsheffield He's also 85 and ... uh ... age comes for us all, and our minds. That surely doesn't help.

[nfoonf@chaos.social]

@mattsheffield @cstross I am shocked in never beginning surprise about that one.

[mxchara@seattle.pink]

@mattsheffield GOOD GAWD

[cm@chaos.social]

@mattsheffield My guess: there's a lot of his writing out there, therefore in the training material of any LLM. So he hears what he wants to hear because he wrote it... it really is a machine that works because people hear something familiar and inject meaning.

[mattsheffield@mastodon.social]

@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@mastodon.social]

@urbanfoxe Used without understanding and awareness of what they are, they can create and magnify delusions.

[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

[griotspeak@soc.mod-12.com]

@mattsheffield Honest question here: has Dawkins waxed anywhere near as poetic about, say, people dying in Gaza or suffering in Sudan or—well—I think you get the point?

[datarama@hachyderm.io]

@MisuseCase @mattsheffield I mean, the Claude Delusion sort of rhymes.

[m@martinh.net]

@mattsheffield Just wait until he discovers SOUL.md

[internetsdairy@mastodon.art]

@mattsheffield oh god he's writing a novel?

[catch56@kolektiva.social]

@mattsheffield did he ask 'Claudia' about his little pot of honey?

[mattsheffield@mastodon.social]

@internetsdairy I'm sure it's going to be about a brilliant and yet misunderstood scientist.