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

Post by harshreality » Mon, May 04, 2026, 7:03 AM UTC

phs318u wrote: post #111

harshreality wrote: post #88

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…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2026, 8:46 AM UTC

spankibalt wrote: post #131

sublinear wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you play the messenger deductively, then its invalid. So much for formal logic. Most arguments in practice are defeasible, and the ad hominem , for better or worse, often plays a significant and essential part in their resolution (addressing reputations, biases, agendas, interest conflicts, and so on). Virtually all interactions between people, even formal ones (e. g. in courts), are not some school exercise in fo…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2026, 1:40 PM UTC

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…

Post by endoblast » Mon, May 04, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

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…

Post by ufiduhfasdf » Tue, May 05, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

dtj1123 wrote: post #105

Dismissing outright the possibility that an LLM harbors some form of consciousness is as dumb as asserting that it definitely does. We have no litmus test for consciousness. We have no definition of consciousness with which to tell a conscious process from an unconscious one. If you think this is just a cute shower thought with no real implications, I'd encourage you to read up on some open problems in philosophy tha…