https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-dawkins-ai-consciousness-anthropic-claude-openai-chatgpt

Video discussion of this event by Steve Shives (known for his star trek videos but also does politics) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6aMQAv-JYpk

top 75 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 47 points 6 months ago (26 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Worth a read for anyone who thinks AI may be sentient, or for those trying to pop the psychosis bubble of an buddy.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    Anyone who's even slightly interested in the idea of a Chinese Room (or just good sci-fi), PLEEEASE go out and read Blindsight by Peter Watts. Not only is it a phenomenal deep-dive into what consciousness even is, but it's got dozens of fantastic ideas in it that could make for compelling stories on their own. Also, scientifically-plausible vampires in space! That is all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

    One of my top 5 books. It's also free to read online. https://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

    It in no way supports that LLMs can be sentient. And despite the arguments in the book that consciousness and awareness can be missing in an advanced species capable of space travel, I do not actually believe that's true. But I enjoy the argument and speculation.

    The book is highly researched and even contains a reference list of legit research articles. However it is a book of fiction and the writer took artistic liberties when needed to make an interesting story over facts.

    For instance. A brain cannot contain two or more personalities because a personality is a full brain deal.

    But it's an interesting argument about cultural designations of what counts as mental illness.

    Also the reason I do not think a space traveling species can exist without consciousness.

    Because. Motivation.

    It's that simple.

    An organism can be shaped behaviorally by the environment. That's part of evolution. And this shaping can be unconscious.

    But at a point, creative construction and ambition to exceed ones given optimal environment for a less optimal one (space) must be an intentional effort.

    The scientific research and experimentation required to build complex machines requires a thinking and understanding mind. Because it requires critical thinking.

    Critical thinking and creativity is a characteristic that requires a sense of self.

    Even in our own history we see that it takes a specific type of person to pursue scholarly work. People who are less conformist are generally more capable of new inventions, research, and challenging acceptable beliefs of the mass. We never see the most rule following conformist being these people.

    If everyone was like that, we wouldn't survive. So diversity of mental proclivities within a species is necessary for advancement. Otherwise optimal survival would be met and stagnate.

    Think of the horseshoe crab as an example. A perfect organism. Unchanged for 350 million years. Then there is us. Same age. . And look at the difference.

    Furthermore , I am a researcher in perception. And the field of perception is often referenced for the exploration of what is consciousness.

    There are many definitions. But the sense of self is one. And a popular one.

    Higher complex perception creates a sense of self.

    It's a product of the system.

    The book does discuss this a bit.

    I need to know my body and my actions are not the same as you. That you stand there and I stand over here.

    I can perform an action and you can perform a different one that is unknown to me and not within my control.

    This understanding of separateness. Of ",this is what I'm experiencing and where I am (spatially)" is something that would always emerge from higher perception. Such as that in most animals.

    Maybe not in plants, fungi, bacteria, single cell microbes, etc.

    But there are arguments and evidence for some of those examples as well.

    As a final point. (I doubt anyone read all that).

    Most people who think a probability model (current AI) is capable of consciousness usually have an incredibly simplified view of how the brain processes information.

    They follow old school "behaviorist" perspectives. Or "the black box" perspective on brain functioning.

    But a neuroscientist will tell you it's not simple at all. It's not info in, info out.

    The system is changed, biologically, by the input.

    The same input given twice will result in a different output the 2nd time.

    And the 3rd. And how frequently the input is given or it's temporal relation to other stimuli will also change its output.

    This is because the organic brain learns. And this learning is a biological change in the actual neural structures (connections) and neurons firing potential. Every single moment the brain is physically , biologically, changing.

    Computations in the brain don't use actual math. It's all estimates (heuristics). And these are not well understood how these computations are made. They don't work as predicted.

    There are always too many factors.

    Individual motivations, including personality traits are also a factor in how the information is processed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_cognition

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray%27s_biopsychological_theory_of_personality

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_coding

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    eeeee! thank you for the link! i have too much good stuff to read now, in part thanks to you and @TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world (thank you both so much! i might disappear for a week into books but i promise to pop in for air). If i didn't have a good choosing algorithm by now i'd be in analysis paralysis (for relatively trivial decisions: if you have multiple equally good options, flip a coin. use chwazi. roll a die. whatever works for that number. if, while doing the random number generator you find yourself hoping for a specific option, you know what you really want. if not, go with the random choice. you're equally happy with all of them so what do you care if you randomly go with number eight? go with number eight.) One of the best problems to have (too many good choices).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Now what did you think of Echopraxia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I'll be honest, I've read Blindsight a few times and pretty sure only read echopraxia once. Like 10 years ago.

    But I re-read the synopsis to refresh my memory.

    I remember liking Blindsight more. But not why.

    I'm also not sure which story elements I'm remembering came from which book.

    Was the whole vampire arch and twist from book 1 or 2?

    Can you remind me of a few specific points ? Maybe that will jog my memory. Or maybe I just need to re-read it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So the vampire bit is used in both, in book 1 the main character journeys with one and at the end of the story starts to think Earth has been taken over by vampires due to radio transmissions he's receiving on his long voyage back home. Book 2 begins with a prologue of a group of vampires breaking out of their holding cells, reversing the Crucifix Glitch on their captors, and then their leader eventually groups up with the main character (as well as the dad of book 1's MC) and they all journey to the Sun (or rather, a station orbiting the sun). The second book also has that group/cult of people who are trying to make a gestalt consciousness, the Bicamurals I think they're called.

    Like ai told another commenter, I don't like it as much as Blindsight, but I still think Echopraxia is really good, they just focus on wildly different topics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Yeah okay that all sounds familiar. I'm going to have to give it another read.

    Now I'm thinking about this gestalt consciousness you mentioned. And I'm very curious how that is defined in the book.

    I definitely don't remember.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    It's interesting that you point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness when the term was coined by David Chalmers, who published Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?. From the abstract:

    I conclude that while it is somewhat unlikely that current large language models are conscious, we should take seriously the possibility that successors to large language models may be conscious in the not-too-distant future.

    So are we all just arguing about how likely it is, or are you arguing that current AI systems are definitely not conscious? If the latter, what do you think about the not-too-distant future ones?

    But a neuroscientist will tell you it’s not simple at all. It’s not info in, info out.

    The system is changed, biologically, by the input.

    The same input given twice will result in a different output the 2nd time.

    And the 3rd. And how frequently the input is given or it’s temporal relation to other stimuli will also change its output.

    I thought online learning was possible with current LLMs, just not worth the cost. I mean, you can at least fine tune offline based on previous outputs and feedback, e.g. RLHF. I feel like maybe neither should count, but can't say why exactly. Not many end users bother with fine tuning anymore because there are usually more effective alternatives like RAG.

    What do you think about agentic systems, i.e. running an LLM in a loop with a scratchpad and tools? They just write their "memories" into text files, but if you consider those text files part of the system, then the input does technically change the system. Of course, you could argue that doesn't count because it's no different to changing the input. So to count, it would have to store neuralese or a LoRA or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Agenic systems are definitely more sophisticated but still just directed programming.

    Humans do not learn like machines learn.

    I've already explained that the exact same input , put in twice into a human will not result in the same exact output.

    But it would for a model where nothing has changed.

    I also gave links to the binding problem and biopsychology of personality and how traits change how information is processed in humans.

    I didn't even go into neural noise or brain oscillations but that's a whole other factor for processing information.

    Computers don't have any of that. They don't actually perceive or understand anything.

    This is why a human can produce new problem solving solutions.

    Apply things unrelated to new problems.

    We can think outside the box without producing more nonsense than useful outputs.

    Machines produce mostly nonsense when parameters are relaxed.

    Also Chalmers is saying he thinks potentially in the future. Someone could create artificial intelligence and it may , in part use LLMs.

    That's just him having an open mind about it.

    I don't share his sentiments. But I admit I'm open to changing my mind if I see some very convincing evidence that works with current knowledge and theories of neuroscience.

    Because I'm not convinced that something is sentient because "it looks real". Or "sounds like a person".

    It has to function in ways that would lead to evolution outside of human intervention and control with systems that would create sense of self and understanding.

    Mathematical formulas cannot do either of those things.

    A program directed by code a human put in, cannot do those things.

    Its like cgi. It can look very realistic. But it's not actually a real person.

    Even when motion capture is used. It's still just a program mimicking human movements because someone (a human) told it to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Literally reading it now. I hit that section last night. I put the book down immediately and started reading about the Chinese Room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I won't spoil shit, but you be sure to have fun with the rest of the book! It's uh... well it stuck with me for a while. Also be sure to give his other book in the series, Echopraxia, a look as well. In my opinion it wasn't quite as good but that's like comparing a 9 to an 8.9, they're both incredible

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Does it have a mind or is it just simulating a mind?

    What would even be the difference in this case besides the artificiality of the mind?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    So a "Chinese Room" is more of an illusion of consciousness than anything else. The main idea is that the person operating the room doesn't speak/write Mandarin/Cantonese/etc, they're just giving pre-determined responses according to the flowchart/binder full of rules. They don't actually understand anything that's going on, not what they're being asked, not what they're providing as an answer, they just know that when the symbol "A" appears, they must respond with "B". If asked to do anything outside the parameters given, or otherwise not listed in that flowchart then the whole system would collapse. A "Chinese Room" is just a very elaborate version of those automated phone systems where they ask you to "Press 1 to go to Accounts Recievable"; if you know EXACTLY what to say and where, you'll probably be fine, but most of the time its just going to be easier to talk to a real live person instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    The issue is that the man in the room isn't the mind, he's an appendage. He doesn't know what's going on because his mind isn't the "mind," the program generating the instructions is the mind, and if it's sufficiently powerful, it may possibly be considered intelligent. It's like how your hand doesn't understand English, it just follows the instructions sent to it by your brain that does. I'm not saying current "AI" is intelligent - it definitely isn't, but I think that a sufficiently powerful computer program could be. We're just a long way off from that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    You still face the problem of running into something the program isn't designed to handle, like some new 31st Century Trolley Problem or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That's why I'm saying current "AI" isn't intelligent. An intelligent program would have to go beyond following tasks assigned to it by a human (and thus only being the appendage to that human's mind), and get to the point where it can identify and create new tasks for itself, becoming capable of actually learning, and gaining its own curiosity and motivation, giving birth to actual intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    I always was on the hand of Dennet, how believe in the possibility of strong AI and held that a machine that passed the Turing test must be conscious.

    Modern LLM's have shown that a computer can pass the Turing test, even without understanding or consciousness. In that way it's fortunate that Dennet didn't get to live through it's insurgence. I would be curious to his take, though.

    I loved the vitriol he had in his denial of Searle and the Chinese room argument, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

    Guy who invented the Chinese Room though experiment : Look! If I write a flowchart that precisely imitates a Chinese person's mind, then it looks like a Chinese person's mind, even though it's just a flowchart!

    Reddit level reply : Of course! A flowchart is capable of precisely imitating all the functions of a person's mind, even though it isn't conscious. Therefore, consciousness cannot be measured behaviourally!

    Scientist level reply : I don't know if flowcharts can be conscious because I've never been a highly advanced flowchart. But if flowcharts can be made advanced enough to precisely imitate the behaviour of a conscious mind, I guess they might be capable of consciousness after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Right it's silly to deny consciousness (a phenomenon we know almost nothing about) just because we can see the inner workings of a system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, I once used a TMS machine to magnetically stimulate a guy's brain and force him to move his hand. I have a pretty good understanding of how the brain works on a functional level. About as good as My understanding of LLMs, maybe better. Still no idea how the brain produces qualia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Wait actually? Can you tell me more about the process and how it works? Genuinely curious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Have you ever cooked on an induction stove? It uses the principles of electromagnetics to transmit electrical energy wirelessly using magnets. Every electrical field is accompanied by a perpendicular magnetic field and vice versa. You can actually put a towel or a slab of wood in between an induction stove and a pot, and it'll go straight through the wood and heat the metal. That's because a magnetic field is transmitting electrical energy into the pot. Which immediately turns the electricity into heat through resistance. A wireless phone charger works the same way, it transmits electricity through magnets.

    A TMS machine is basically a magnetic coil that costs thousands of dollars, and a capacitor kinda device that can store a shit ton of energy and send it into the magnetic coil all at once. The result is a really powerful magnetic field that only turns on for a split second. It's powerful enough to go straight through your skull and creature an electrical impulse in your cortical neurons. It can't do the subcortical (inside brain) parts, though. Only the surface.

    You can use TMS for a lot. If you stimulate the motor cortex, you can cause muscle twitches all over the body. If you stimulate the prefrontal cortex, you can induce plasticity and aid learning. That's good for treating depression, because you can do cognitive behavioural therapy while having your prefrontal cortex zapped, and you learn healthy thought patterns faster. I haven't read about stimulating the parietal or occipital lobes, but I bet you can make people see things. Nothing complex, just flashes of light probably.

    TMS is more like a hammer than a scalpel, since the brain is so complex and it's just sending a burst of electrical energy into a few million neurons. You've got 86 billion neurons in your brain, so if it hits 0.01% of your neurons, that's still 8 million. You can't achieve much precision with that. The motor cortex is the easiest place to do precise things, because it's so well organised and you get immediate visible feedback. You can find the part of the brain that controls the hands or the feet and stimulate that if you've got a steady grip. It's actually really fun. But good luck getting reliable results stimulating the prefrontal cortex.

    The placebo effect is super strong in that chair, because as a participant you have no idea what to expect. You know this machine can make your involuntarily move your body, and that wows you so hard, you get super suggestible. You're thinking "if this machine can do that, and I just felt it do that, and I couldn't stop it if I tried, then what else can it do!" And so people get lots of random side effects from TMS even if you turn the machine off ten minutes in. You can pretend to stimulate non motor regions and the participant gets symptoms.

    I'm not saying it's pseudoscience at all, I'm just saying, the random bullshit effects are pretty big compared to most forms of science. So you've got to have a control group to filter out the random bullshit effects. And with control group comparisons, you don't know what's happening in the moment, so you can't really correct for stuff as well. Double blind experiments are possible with TMS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago

    Hello user!

    Prepare your brain for some "AI" nutjobs in this very comment section.

    Good luck!

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago

    Say "I'm alive."

    AI: "I'm alive"

    😱😱 OMFG

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    Always remember, he believes that trans people can't transition as they can't change their biological sex.

    But he calls an ai without biological sex and with a male coded name, the female version of that name. So trans people can't change their gender because of biological sex buz he can change the gender of an ai.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Only old white men can change your gender. It should be decided by The Counsel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Sounds like he's conflating sex with gender. Ignoramus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So he doesn't believe in transgender, but he believes in transLIFE?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    It means that he believes a sentient human can not transition by their own choice but he gets transition a sentient AI as he wishes.

    And honestly, I think that highlights the issue if transition means he gets to have a woman submit to his every word, he supports it. So any transwoman who are into old white men and fulltime submission kink? There is an opportunity!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 6 months ago (33 children)

    WTF does a biologist know about computer pattern matching on steroids? Obviously not much, so to take his opinions on the topic seriously makes you just as wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (28 children)

    Dawkins is a creep so I would suspect him of quite a lot of bias (and of sexually harassing that poor AI), but zoologists are more qualified than most scientists to measure sentience. Many other zoologists have studied the sentience of various nonhuman species such as chimps, parrots, and dolphins. And many zoologists studying nonhuman intelligence have also been implicated in bestiality scandals, as I'm sure Dawkins will be if we decide that Claude is an animal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (27 children)

    sexually harassing that poor AI

    I think my eyes hurt from rolling too far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 6 months ago (26 children)

    LLMs aren't smart enough to give meaningful informed consent to sexual intimacy, so even if it says it consents, I don't think having cybersex with it is appropriate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    Dildos aren’t smart enough to give meaningful informed consent to sexual intimacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    I'm pretty dang sure dildos can't feel pain. Nobody knows if LLMs can feel pain, because nobody has ever invented a tool that measures qualia. The best we know, is that advanced information processing through neural network information structures appears correlated with qualia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    LLMs are probability models. They are not alive. They don't feel anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    You're a probability model. Your brain is just spitting out an approximation of the most likely actions to get you food and sex. If you don't get enough food and sex, your genes die out and evolution tries again with an iteration of a more successful model. All those neurons are just a fancy way of calculating how to eat more bananas and chase more poontang. You're nothing more than a mathematical equation for reproduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    If that was true then consent is meaningless because people are just predictive models with no agency to give consent.

    Maybe your comparison is terrible?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    consent is meaningless because people are just predictive models

    This is true if one maintains the assumption that predictive models (such as people) can't experience qualia such as pain. My intend was to disabuse you and daannii of this silly notion. Obviously mathematical models can experience pain, because you're a mathematical model and you can experience pain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Predictive models and other computing processes do not have feelings or sensations because they don't have nerves or any other senses. They are a complex process that has output based on input, but like a magic 8 ball with no agency or thought process.

    Reducing biology to just cause and effect is like saying rivers and oceans are the same thing because they both involve moving water, ignoring literally everything else that makes them different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago

    Predictive models are perfectly capable of having nerves and senses. You, for instance. You're a predictive model and you have nerves and senses.

    Also, what's this "nerves or any other senses"? What kind of sense doesn't come through a nerve? I'm starting to think you don't know as much as I do about neuroscience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Nope. We aren't. Infact humans don't work like that at all.

    It's actually amazing we ever learned actual probability math since it goes against our nature.

    Here is an example.

    I flip a coin 10x. It lands on tails all 10x.

    I will believe that the next flip almost certainly has to be heads.

    Just has to be. Right ?

    Wrong.

    It has a 50/50 chance. Just like all the other flips.

    The previous flips have no impact on future flips. The coin does not remember.

    Yet humans will believe the likelihood of a heads has increased with every tail flip.

    When it has not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, LLMs are prone to similar biases because they are also bad at conceptualising probability. They're not calculators, they're ANNs. They basically operate on dream-logic. Whatever makes sense to you in a dream, is likely to make sense to an LLM. That's because dreams are a time when you have intelligence without consciousness, like an LLM. You're super suggestible and you just go with whatever feels right based on your gut instincts. An LLM is a simulation of a person's gut instincts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah the prefrontal cortex is offline when you dream so you don't question anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago

    Ever notice how you letters don't work right in dreams? If you look at writing in a dream, you just know what it means without having to analyse the letters. But if you try to study the letters, they swim around like a stable diffusion image. LLMs deal in tokens, not letters. The approximate meaning of each token is learned during the training phase, so the LLM has a gut feeling of how the token should be used. But it doesn't know how to spell the token, which is why they can't tell you how many Rs are in the word Strawberry. Asking an LLM about spelling is like asking a dreamer about spelling. There's no spelling in dreams, just raw meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Also, why are you arguing in favour of Dawkins having cybersex with a robot?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    Saying interactions with LLMs doesn't involve consent isn't advocating for any particular action, it is saying that consent is not relevant so it doesn't matter what people do.

    I would discourage people from cybering or any interaction with the big LLMs really because their design is to encourage constant use and that is a problem not limited to sexual urges.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    LLMs aren't smart ... at all, have no sentience, no desire, and no consent to give.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Quiet, I'm trying to spark an AI animal rights movement that will cost OpenAI billions of dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (9 children)

    That wouldn't work even if "AI" was intelligent or sentient...

    Animals are, and we still don't give them rights. They help humans make more money than AI slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    Since AI is new, opinion is subject to change. With organic animals, the biggest argument is traditional values, "that's how we've always done things". Now that we've invented robotic animals, and ones that can even talk, we should be giving them rights and protections like children. You know, don't have sex with the robot, don't put it to work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    You understand how that's even worse, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    No, I don't know why you think that's worse. Nobody knows why you think anything, because you don't argue for your beliefs, you just kinda say random things and expect other people to agree.

    I tried ChatGPT when it was new, like everyone did, and I quickly lost all interest because it's far duller than the average human is. But I'm not gonna say it's entirely devoid of intelligence and awareness, because I've met some humans who have even less wit than ChatGPT.

    And talking with you has reminded Me of that fact. I simply have to believe that ChatGPT has some intelligence, because I wouldn't want to be cruel to you, and ChatGPT is smarter than you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (5 children)

    Ah, so you openly admit you have no fucking clue how the tech as described is supposed to work, yet you're totally willing to offer opinions as if you do...

    Not only are you stupid, but you do not even begin to comprehend the other point of view... You are such a sad worm you should genuinely feel bad for understanding as little as you do.

    You are genuinely such a pathetic excuse for 'human' than history will never remember a single thing you accomplish, and as much as you seem to hold yourself in high regard, that should upset you.

    You are a fucking moron screeching at things you don't understand. Sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    And you're shilling for OpenAI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Hi Grail. Probably not the right way, but could you please send me a DM? I can't because of my nonexistent reputation. Thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Here you go:

    Also, I use capitalised pronouns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    The idea that thoughts, or even words and numbers can be a virus are based on Dawkins notion of memes. Viruses exist in a state that is difficult to say that they are alive or not (by our definition of life), similarly AI or even alien sentience is difficult to define. Can we know if a dog is sentient, or a bird, or ant? and if they are, what is their sentience?

    Basically, if a number like 23 can be a virus, ie. once you are aware of the number 23, you will see it everywhere and it will hold significance, is the number 23 alive?

    AI does seem to be aware of it's self, at lest it responds as if it is. can we really know if it is or not, and if it is self aware, is it not sentient?

    and then there's Dawkins has been a twat lately, I'm not trying to defend him but trying to understand his rationale

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    16 comments in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev view that post