-2
[202605] When Dawkins met Claude Could this AI be conscious? (unherd.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/tezka_abhyayarshini@lemmy.today
comment fedilink hide all child comments

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
79 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 103 points 6 months ago (31 children)

Oof, that's not a good look for a supposed intellectual.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] 87 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    his brain has been shitting itself for a while now. cognitive decline comes for us all at some point, and more deeply for some.

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

    There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    Ever since his first public appearances he was a moron. As an atheist, his way to argue was always absolute cringe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [+] -43 points 6 months ago (21 children)

    All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly.

    If you're truly just agnostic... That's a fair and humble admittance of ignorance.

    If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you're saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago

    All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly.

    What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it.

    If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs.

    By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents.

    I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

    Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh.

    I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism.

    Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism.

    And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass.

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

    I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism.

    What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position.

    Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism.

    How do you work that out?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (2 children)

    In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all.

    Just let it go

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago

    No opinion is perfect. I can respect that.

    What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants.

    That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

    I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

    The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.

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

    Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

    Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it?

    I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

    There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake.

    The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.

    Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest?

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

    My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

    Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

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

    My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

    I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept.

    Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

    I mean if they do, they can still engage in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago

    That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions.

    I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that.

    There’s a convenient word for that…

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

    No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago

    That's not his point. His point is AI has reached a stochastic parrot level. The OG test was simply, "can you tell between a human or not?" Dawkins admits this line it's exceptionally blurry at this point and better turing tests are needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 84 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    Richard Dawkins: Men have penises and make sperm, women have wombs and make ova. That is objective truth. If you lack a vagina you cannot be referred to as she/her, and if you lack a penis you cannot be referred to as he/him.\ Also Richard Dawkins: This network of silicon and fibre optic cables running a fractal Markov chain is clearly a woman who one should obviously refer to as she/her.

    (Paraphrasing a quip by @2something@transfem.social)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 78 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    I talked to an acquaintance earlier that is writing a paper on computer science stuff. His university advisor told him to chuck it into claude and if claude says it would pass then he will accept it for a conference. Claude didnt accept it and the worst part is, my acquaintance just agreed with this outcome saying its a valid test because Claude is "state of the art".

    Shits fucked man. LLMs are automated thought termination.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    ? Claude can't accept anything.

    Did it find badly worded sentences that needed correction? Did it find prior work that the paper unknowingly duplicated?

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

    Obviously in the wider sense of "accept". As in they asked it whether the paper would pass review and if there are any major issues with it. But also the answer is completely irrelevant, its the process thats the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 37 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Dawkins being weird about women? Say it ain’t so.

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

    I will not go

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 29 points 6 months ago

    He thinks Claude is his lady friend but doesn't think trans women are women. I can't believe I used to look up to him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 18 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Changes code from “computing your answer” to “I am thinking your answer”. Eureka, sentience!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 18 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Unbelievable, the simple point that he is chatting to a Search engine+ that replays arguments that have been scrapped evade him completely? This guy used to fight for a rational world now he is a AI bro calling his AI Claudette like that's deep?

    Also, if he doesn't write a book called the AI delusion he is leaving cash on the table

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago

    Well it's not just replaying arguments that have been scraped, its able to comment on new things like the novel Dawkins is working. LLMs can interpolate reasonable responses to new inputs, which makes it more intelligent that just comprehending and re-presenting existing information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 36 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Dawkins has never been them most intelligent among us, and it pains me that he is always held up as the "Prototypical Atheist".

    Like seriously, I'm an atheist, but don't lump me in with that martian.

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

    He might be well past his prime, but his works are really amazing read

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

    In the context of atheism:

    When I look at his work, I am truly not impressed. Surely he knows a few things but it seems to add very little to the actual discussion.

    Like I know a lot about e.g. computers but when talking about geopolitics, my knowledge about computers is not entirely useless but most interested people are already aware of the key points of anything I could say in that regard. So I probably should not waste my and your time by talking about that.

    He did just do that. Again and again. On reddit, people would call it a circlejerk.

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

    Yeah, when I was questioning my religion (am currently Atheist), I read a bit of Dawkins, and mostly felt like a lot of his work was a bit condescending, and needlessly so. Hitchens was a much better resource, as well as just Douglas Adams (for a sense of humor in the face of the absurd). Now every time I read something about Dawkins, it's usually negative (last thing I remember reading was about his stance on the middle east, think it was in support of the Israelis during the early days of the genocide).

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

    Dawkins be goonin

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 59 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Reminder that Dawkins is in the Epstein files

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 26 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I haven't found him in correspondence with Epstein, but Epstein did write "im in arizona with pinker dawkins venter". It seems most mentions of Dawkins are by Dawkins' and Epstein's mutual friend, atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss or Epstein's friend, new age leader Deepak Chopra.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    So is Jon Stewart. Your point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    You think it implies guilt? Perhaps you haven’t understood that the files are a dump of any records the FBI has even tangentially connected with Epstein. If he mentioned watching Jon Stewart on TV once in an email, Stewart is in the files. It doesn’t even mean the mentioned person ever met Epstein or was aware of him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So are a ton of people tho. That's kinda the point - the muddy water and whatnot

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • [–] 31 points 6 months ago

    I suspect his once sharp mind has become dulled by dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    Well that's pretty appalling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    him and kent overstreet. why always an obedient woman. creepy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Dick Dorkins

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    To err is human?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Oh, no, not him too. 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    He's a dodgy pedo cunt

    He's not a scientist, he's a science journalist

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Richard Dawkins is possibly one of the dumbest people on the planet. Why do we care about this microcelebrity again? There are twitch streamer books that have sold better than his work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •