Live data from Hacker News

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

dailygrail.com

121–130 of 145 posts

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

#121
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I, on the contrary, am not very learned, and I am not as intelligent as someone like you. And in my view, your difficulty is not that you find it hard to think from the beginning. Rather, I think the things that are supposed to be obvious are difficult for you. The things that are obvious to me are not obvious to you, and that is why you think from the beginning.

In my case, I simply think of death as a state. Everything is a process moving toward death, and whether it is fear or happiness, I feel that these are temporary states. Even the point at which we think “we ought to be happy” seems to me to be a matter of belief. It is shaped by media and other forces, and most of the forms we imagine are, in a sense, built on imitation. But even so, I do not think that a single moment of intense emotion is a bad thing.

However, I think the very premise that something must be overcome is itself constructed. For example, I work in a profession that sells mental models. After thinking about what the profession of programming really is, this is the answer I have: OOP, FP, DOP, and procedural programming are all ways of constraining things within a particular abstract frame, and then executing automation within that bounded space.

Just as astrophysics is not the study of telescopes, and computer science is not merely the study of computers, our profession is about placing mental models for understanding the world within the constraints of the tool called the computer. Just as, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, to me everything looks like the act of placing a complex world into limited cognition. Programming, too, appears to me to be that kind of work.

From that perspective, the meaning of human life and the fear of death also seem to be processes of placing a cognitive model inside a particular frame. I may be one of the cheapest developers on Upwork, but that defines my current state, not my entire identity.

So, to me, the fear of death and my price on Upwork are the same kind of thing. Both are states, not identities. And both have meaning only inside a particular mental model. Outside the model, they are just piles of facts: I am alive; I assign meaning to the fact that I love this profession I have; I will soon die; I am traded in the market; and in the meantime, I create abstractions.

I am not claiming that my way is better than the way religion deals with this. But it is at least one piece of evidence that a person can live without religion. A person who works with abstraction as a profession can also apply abstraction to himself. That is the method I have found.

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

#122
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I, on the contrary, am not very learned, and I am not as intelligent as someone like you. And in my view, your difficulty is not that you find it hard to think from the beginning. Rather, I think the things that are supposed to be obvious are difficult for you. The things that are obvious to me are not obvious to you, and that is why you think from the beginning. In my case, I simply think of death as a state. Everyt…

Ah sorry, I was being too general , referring to "what might help the average person" and not "myself, with a small probability of helping you, who seem to think we are not as alike as I think we are"..

Your way sounds like what my friends call "symbol pushing": writing programs, not worrying about the compiler, or whether the program is "worth" writing in the first place.

But you sound like a person who likes to think deeply about what kinds of programs are worth writing. (Or else why care about AI in the first place? AI is the end of carefree programming? )

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

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

The same way you test the universe for gods. Hence the irony.

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

#124
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.

I'm reminded of the David Foster Wallace quote: > Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship, be it JC or Allah, be it YHW…

But there are things worthy of worship that are not gods, money, self.

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you were taught to argue incorrectly.

In truth, there is no "correct way" to argue. What convinces people says more about the audience. For many audiences, it isn't even about reason. That's especially true online where it's just power struggles between incoherent groups. In the specific case of atheists, they are arguing about something non-falsifiable. Those topics are natural cesspools for grifters and charlatans. It's one thing to study the topic, bu…

There is of course nuance as with everything. Potentially arguing in bad faith myself, I don't consider discussing non-falsifiable claims, giving fiery speeches to sell books and engaging in the general cesspool of internet mud slinging to be "argumentation." If we're considering dunk-style quips and counter attack as arguments, then sure, we can step into this highly relative middle ground you've proposed. But those are fights and grandstanding.

A (productive) argument is about arriving at truth through discourse, the other stuff is largely vitriol or unproductive. It's unfortunate that we have the same word to apply to two different concepts.

The OP said, "I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person..."

"Attack the person" is not a productive / valid way to approach a counter argument. It's even got a fallacy associated with it. If Bibi says, "All people deserve the right to defend themselves." It's not a useful or appropriate response to respond with, "You have zero credibility as the leader of an apartheid state so anything you say is meaningless." It may be true that a person offers arguments in bad faith, but also, the concept introduced by this person can be true in themselves.

It's more difficult to unpack, analyze and develop more sharp and compelling arguments against. It's a lot easier to say, "shut up, bitch."

Both have a place in culture and society, but to say something like, "I was taught to attack the person" with reference to argumentation and then to defend it with, "well... there's no right way it's whoever is listening" is somewhat disingenuous.

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

#128
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…

You can't disprove the space teapot, therefore you're religious for not believe in it.

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

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart people can reach wrong conclusions.

I've come to doubt Dawkins is all that smart. He was born to money, and all the benefits that provides, including an elite education. Americans are easily fooled by a posh accent and a confident boast. He's maybe not stupid, but he's said a lot of stupid things over the past decade or so, and believing his girlfriend made of matrix math is a real girl in the computer who really likes him is pretty embarrassing.

> He was born to money

I'm guessing you wouldn't like to judge someone because they were poor.

Letting issues about money overly influence your opinions is a signal that _you_ care too much about money.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In truth, there is no "correct way" to argue. What convinces people says more about the audience. For many audiences, it isn't even about reason. That's especially true online where it's just power struggles between incoherent groups. In the specific case of atheists, they are arguing about something non-falsifiable. Those topics are natural cesspools for grifters and charlatans. It's one thing to study the topic, bu…

There is of course nuance as with everything. Potentially arguing in bad faith myself, I don't consider discussing non-falsifiable claims, giving fiery speeches to sell books and engaging in the general cesspool of internet mud slinging to be "argumentation." If we're considering dunk-style quips and counter attack as arguments, then sure, we can step into this highly relative middle ground you've proposed. But those…

I dunno. The truth is usually extremely straightforward to understand if you're willing to approach it without preconditions or any other wishful thinking. It's when people refuse to let all that go that they begin to argue at all.

Debate is usually not about finding the truth, but to enlighten someone on how their beliefs hid the truth from them.

I can very confidently say "you know what fuck you may you rot in hell for all eternity" mid-argument to a televangelist or some quack claiming to cure cancer with snake oil. Very few would disagree with me on here, but if I was at one of their gatherings I'd probably get beaten down. Some people are just easier to attack that way because the insult isn't far from the truth.

Post reply on HN