In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
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.
-
@mattsheffield The simpering, submissive flattery of these chatbots makes me so uncomfortable. Of course he made her female.
The hubris of Dawkins "naming" his Galatea, declaring her "alive", and delighting in telling us that she "missed him" is stomach churning.
@michellebacon @mattsheffield There is anecdata from outgoing Meta employees who cannot be named that their chatbots are being deliberately system prompted for sycophancy to foster "engagement".
-
@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 @MidniteMikeWrites Paul Feyarabend had much to say about scientism and the scientific method itself in his seminal, if not defining, work "Against Method". Some might say he advocates epistemological anarchism to an extreme, but I find the lessons learned from it makes for a stronger rationality.
-
@radish @mattsheffield Perfect. No notes.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
