Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
flux.community
Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#2[deleted]
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#3The lack of reading comprehension (or perhaps just lack of reading) behind this brouhaha is amazing.
Dawkins did not proclaim Claude conscious. He argued that Claude passes the Turing test, and then asks a question: if something can pass the Turing test without being conscious, what further factor is there not captured by the test? More pointedly, what does consciousness do that LLMs do not?
I suspect that some people have grown so accustomed to "question as sly statement" that the notion of "question as pointing out something not presently known" flies right over their heads.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#4"The selfish gene" is one of the most influential books I read. I wish Dawkins would have stuck with biology instead of becoming this insufferable edgelord of the dark enlitenment. He's a great science educator, but failed human.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#5I just wanted to comment on the brilliance of the post title.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#6It's either Anthropic paid him or just attention seeking.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#7[flagged]
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#8These sorts of articles have no value. The author is a "media entrepreneur". Being forced to read his opinion intermixed with out of context pull-quotes is not a good use of anyone's time. If Dawkins gave his opinion at length it might be worth reading but only if your goal is to understand something about Dawkins not about AI.
I would be interested to see a scientific discussion on what consciousness is biologically and if AI can fit that definition. But it would require someone with more credentials than a _media entrepreneur_ to pull off.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#9To be fair, the evidence that LLM aren't conscious is entirely "because of the feels" evidence.
People will very quickly attack you for suggesting consciousness, but when asked to provide a benchmark for testing this, they just laugh, look at you weird, and internally crumple.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#10To be fair, the evidence that LLM aren't conscious is entirely "because of the feels" evidence. People will very quickly attack you for suggesting consciousness, but when asked to provide a benchmark for testing this, they just laugh, look at you weird, and internally crumple.
Nobody will ever define consciousness to a level that everyone agrees so the whole debate is silly
There’s no winners in a debate about a concept nobody agrees on the definition of