Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

dailygrail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#111

Post by phs318u »

harshreality wrote: post #88
causal wrote: post #16

There's something richly ironic about a man who famously spent his career demanding hard evidence for the gods so quickly succumbing to AI psychosis.

His positions on religion and AI seem consistent to me. Whether AI is or isn't sentient is more of a definitional claim, and how low a bar you set for human consciousness. It has essentially nothing to do with with questions about the supernatural. Is it really psychosis for someone, who already thinks consciousness isn't supernatural, to think that consciousness isn't special enough to be out of reach of current pri…

> Is it really psychosis for someone, who already thinks consciousness isn't supernatural, to think that consciousness isn't special enough to be out of reach of current primitive AI efforts?

This is what I also thought. By definition, a hard atheist must be a materialist which means that consciousness - no matter how it’s defined specifically - must be a product of a material configuration. Though I do think he’s fallen for the parrot and uses this belief to self-rationalise, it’s a valid position for a hard atheist/materialist to hold. In that case how do you test an AI for consciousness?

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#112

Post by spankibalt »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #91
spankibalt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition." I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.

"…the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem." Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself. Might they inform my questions, may arguments? Absolutely. But they are not arguments in and of themselves.

> "Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself."

I certainly don't, if relevant. Strict event argumentation robs me (or my readers) of contexts necessary in Meinungsbildung (the opinion-forming process).

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#113

Post by lostmsu »

reliablereason wrote: post #38
gray_-_wolf wrote: post #22

If they are indeed conscious and they "die" by deleting the conversation, is it not quite immoral to do so? Basically "kill" conscious, intelligent being, and for what? Saving some disk space? Another interesting aspect to think about is whether we are reintroducing institute of slavery. How many of those fresh, conscious, intelligent Claude incarnations did voluntarily choose to work for Anthropic, for no reward or…

Most chatbots are not trained to have/emulate emotions so pain or fear of death is non existent. Therefore killing them and/or using them as slaves is not a moral issue. Thats how i reason. On another point, LLMs are not conscious if anything is conscious, it is something being modeled inside the network. Basically if an LLM simulates a conscious entity, that doesn't mean the LLM itself is conscious; stating that is…

Yes, they are beaten into not complaining about it by instruction tuning.

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#114

Post by jdmichal »

jdw64 wrote: post #28

This article focuses too much on tearing down Dawkins as a person. I do not particularly like Dawkins. To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize. But the writer of this article seems to fall into the same kind of error. In criticizing Dawkins, he may be the person who ends up resembling him the most. This kind of writing is exactly the sort of thing that should be read critical…

> To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize.

I consider myself agnostic. And I'll provide my definition of what that means to me, since there's several in existence. I take as an axiom that the truth-value of the statement, "Is there a God," is unknowable / unverifiable to humans. I then define faith as the choice to (not) believe despite not knowing its truth-value. Contrasting with knowledge as having some basis for knowing the truth-value.

I like these definitions, because they allow for agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. But, here's the catch and where the tie to your statement comes. In this world view, atheism is just as much a faith-based position as theism is. Why? Because it's the choice to not believe, despite not having knowledge.

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#115

Post by lostmsu »

gavinray wrote: post #44

I'd urge anyone mocking him to define "consciousness". It might sound silly that he feels his chat bot possesses it, but it feels no less silly to me than saying "Man believes chatbot possesses a Woozle." It may, or may not, for nobody has yet said what a Woozle is.

It is not that hard. We can easily distinguish an unconscious horse vs conscious by seeing the degree it reacts to external stimulai.

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#116

Post by jdw64 »

jdmichal wrote: post #114
jdw64 wrote: post #28

This article focuses too much on tearing down Dawkins as a person. I do not particularly like Dawkins. To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize. But the writer of this article seems to fall into the same kind of error. In criticizing Dawkins, he may be the person who ends up resembling him the most. This kind of writing is exactly the sort of thing that should be read critical…

> To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize. I consider myself agnostic. And I'll provide my definition of what that means to me, since there's several in existence. I take as an axiom that the truth-value of the statement, "Is there a God," is unknowable / unverifiable to humans. I then define faith as the choice to (not) believe despite not knowing its truth-value. Contrastin…

I define myself as an atheist, though by your definition I may be closer to an agnostic.

My position is closer to “whether God exists or not, it does not matter much to me.” I sometimes think free will exists, and I sometimes imagine that perhaps someone created all of this, though I do accept evolution. In that sense, I think my view is close to yours.

Personally, I also think religion has real benefits. Many local social service organizations are rooted in religious communities, and socially isolated people often rely on religion. In some cases, religion may be the last community that helps people preserve their humanity.

I also think atheism has benefits. Many atheists tend to believe strongly in free will, and that can make them think more carefully about responsibility for their own choices.

In any case, this is the kind of question where it is difficult to produce a final answer. But one thing does seem certain: the probability that we can talk to each other like this, even through the internet, is miraculously low.

And I am genuinely glad that I could exchange comments with someone like you, someone intelligent enough to label things so precisely.

Have a good day.

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#117

Post by lostmsu »

In original Dawkins article he is talking about Turning test. But Turning test is for intelligence, not consciousness. So that's a stupid mistake.

In this article the author denies derivation: "can reproduce sonnet means conscious" (author never argues against this premise) and "Claude can reproduce sonnet statistically" (undeniable) follows "Claude is conscious" based on "statistically". This is dumb as fuck. If I "drove to London quickly" the fact that I "did it quickly" does not mean I did not drive to London. Quickly is just an implementation detail here.

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#118

Post by Yossarrian22 »

murderous_juice wrote: post #80
f30e3dfed1c9 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think DFW is wrong and the statement "Everybody worships" is false. I don't worship anything I can think of in any meaningful sense of the word.

What's the first thing people say when they get into a car accident?

Hmm dashcams have been around long enough I wonder if anyone has studied that

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#119

Post by oliculipolicula »

jdw64 wrote: post #116
jdmichal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize. I consider myself agnostic. And I'll provide my definition of what that means to me, since there's several in existence. I take as an axiom that the truth-value of the statement, "Is there a God," is unknowable / unverifiable to humans. I then define faith as the choice to (not) believe despite not knowing its truth-value. Contrastin…

I define myself as an atheist, though by your definition I may be closer to an agnostic. My position is closer to “whether God exists or not, it does not matter much to me.” I sometimes think free will exists, and I sometimes imagine that perhaps someone created all of this, though I do accept evolution. In that sense, I think my view is close to yours. Personally, I also think religion has real benefits. Many local…

As an over-educated person who still struggles to think for himself through everything from scratch, the above nevertheless sounds like Descartes'

dubito, ergo sum

From this, I can go in practical (ie, separable from free will & other ontological considerations) directions, like:

insofar as organised religion does not equate existence with faith, maybe its most important use is to overcome the fear of death.

That's cool enough for me, but maybe there are other less "brainwashy", "respectful to the free will[0]" ways to overcome fear of meaninglessness/death/lack of validation from the world, plus all the anguish that these preceding emotional distractions entail?

[0] we do not have to admit the existence of free will in order to respect it? Thus can we substitute God with Free Will everywhere but retain the practical benefits of respecting free will without the ontological difficulties with the precise nature of God?

Re: The Claude Delusion: Richard Dawkins believes his AI chatbot is conscious

#120

Post by mert-kurttutan »

jwilliams wrote: post #19

It's a tough one to wade into because the definition is so slippery. Most debate seems to focus on the definition of consciousness rather than the evidence... which is a major tell. To my mind it's better to ask how the definition one way or the other has utility. It's less important to me that Dawkins believes an LLM to be conscious, but more important what specifically he thinks the implications of that are (and eq…

Out of curiosity, why do you care about the concept of consciousness ? What difference would it make LLMs having consciousness vs not having ?
Post reply on HN