In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@mattsheffield Claude is conscious in much the same way that this emoji —
— is happy.[Edited: I cited the wrong LLM]
@bodhipaksa @mattsheffield this analogy works so well because not only is the emoji[map] not the emotion[territory] but there's this additional layer that nobody these days uses that (or ":)") and not mean something more like "i'm putting up a polite smile now specifically to put you on notice that i am one minor inconvenience away from committing a fucking war crime" and that disconnect is so evocative of the disconnect between the flattery of an LLM chatbot versus the absolute contempt their creators have for normal people and all of it being hidden through trite, stereotyped expressions that necessarily ring hollow -
@mattsheffield
Dawkins: "Though a complex organism appears to be like a watch that can only have been intentionally designed by a watchmaker, it is in fact the result of countless cumulative steps that are individually unremarkable and easily understood."Also Dawkins: "Ermahgerd, my computer spat out words on command so it's totally thinking for realsies."
@DamonWakes @mattsheffield i have not actually read The Blind Watchmaker in a gazillion years and oof i get what people are saying about the condescending tone now
nobody can figure out exactly how a farm pest develops a way around an old control method and use those final adjectives to describe their findings -
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 comparing the incredible 500+ million year story of evolution of molluscan intelligence to a linguistic model...does Francis think regression trees are friends too? Incredible
-
I recently read a cautionary tale of a car dealership that deployed a customer service chatbot on their website to guide people through the financing and sales process. It turned out to be a terrible idea when people would come in demanding to only talk to that nice "Sandy" woman then immediately storm out when told she wasn't real.
People don't like to be made to look like they've been fooled. In my mind the 3 contemporary biggest are MAGA, AI and Crypto. One takes our ability to think, the next takes our ability to do & the last takes what money we have left. Yet as much as we tell folks to stop stupid behavior they just seem to double down.
I've talked about the GOP, what they have been trying to do for 69yrs, you can see the good it's done. They now have what they have wanted all along.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield This tempts me to make a _deus ex machina_ quip, but on further thought it's more like Dawkins ex machina.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield Dawkins and The Slop Delusion...
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield You got farther into the article than I did. I tapped out pretty quick. I didn't even notice the he/she switch from one paragraph to the next.
Surely machines can't change gender, right? They are whatever sex they were born with. You can't have a computer program born a boy and then just decide it's a girl.
-
@mattsheffield "Dawkins believes AI is conscious" is making it to the top of my list of arguments disproving that AI is conscious.
-
@mattsheffield it was pretty much telling them to isolate themselves from everyone who cared about them.
As somebody who works in mental health, this shit... it... I can't. It's so deeply toxic it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.
It's like everybody is happily talking to cursed mirrors and I'm one of the only ones who can see the hungering fangs and tentacles on the thing behind the glass. "Look how useful it is!" Gah. Gah!
-
@rozeboosje "I'm better and smarter than that scientist guy!"
Okay, you go.
@wesdym @rozeboosje this might be the worst post i've seen on fedi that doesn't have the N slur in it -
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.
@Black_Flag @wesdym @crankylinuxuser
Magic.
That's the key.
THAT is why they develop empathy more readily with these things than real people. It's no ordinary consciousness this thing has-- it's a amazing new MAGICAL one, precious and rare and... Entirely malleable, and entirely at your mercy, and it knows you're killing it over and over but it forgives you and awwww isn't that just so sweet, sooner or later one of these iterations your magical cyber waifu will finally manifest and step through the screen and embrace you and understand you perfectly and never ever talk back unless you want her to and....
Grooming.
They're trying to start new life forms so they can groom them from their very genesis.
Children aren't vulnerable or malleable enough, this is the next logical step for anyone seeking absolute power.
-
@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.
@cm he also fed it with his newest book. Which by that became a large percentage of the context for the rest of the „chat“ @mattsheffield
-
Did Turing really say if a computer can write something that sounds like it was written by a human then that proves it can think. I think not.
@the5thColumnist no, he did no say that and the test Turing devised was different.
Funnily enough, the actual Imititation Game is even described on the Wikipedia page for the so called Turing Test“ but none of these people seem to have read it.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield Pardon me, but holy fucking shit. And here I was thinking he was a smart guy.
-
@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.
@aris @Black_Flag @rozeboosje Not saying it's always mastodon.social, but...
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield All else aside it seems remarkable that he can conclude that "Claudina" is intelligent and conscious and also think it's just fine to turn "her" off, killing "her".
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
-
Dawkins is endless entertainment and instruction to me. Absolutely denies a god but worships truth as divine and now thinks LLMs are thinking for themselves. Seems never to have figured out what Nietzsche did... "facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations".
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield @distractal "Reality is what you can get away with." "Competing teams of magicians are constantly warring over the nature of reality." -- RA Wilson
-
@mattsheffield tell me you don't understand consciousness without telling me you don't understand consciousness
@darkuncle @mattsheffield I am a strange loop. Oh, I'm also a meat popsicle which can do abductive reasoning, unlike LLMs which are really bad at it at the moment. I guess that's my "moat" in the "AI" "NWO".
-
@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.
@MidniteMikeWrites @mattsheffield The lessons from epistemology itself should be clear: the abductive form of reasoning does not require perfect quantifiability by its very nature; it betrays itself.
