141–145 of 145 posts
The statement that the chatbot is conscious is neither true nor untrue in any meaningful sense. The current debate is supported by very strong feelings that we must be conscious and AI must not be . These feelings have no particular basis in material reality. Consciousness is as well defined as cooties. Does AI have cooties? idk man, do you?
I'm using the terms consciousness and conscious in the "hard problem" sense here.
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…
And as to the parent comment about "militant atheists", it glosses over the fact that we are outnumbered by militant theocrats who are actively trying to get their interpretation of their faith as law for all.
And one doesn't have to dig deep into those communities to see that they don't see atheists as worthy of existing in "their world".
So yes, more militant atheism please. I'd love to not care about the follies of faith but that requires not being threatened by those that claim to be doing god's work.
In _The God Delusion_ he took an uncompromising atheist position partly to invite attention and attacks - which sells books. Regarding AI consciousness, he takes another extreme position partly to invite attention and attacks - again following the rule of thumb that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" - in an attempt to bring himself back to cultural relevance by pivoting to the hot topic of AI.
Ironically, while he is certain that some people are deluded when they infer the existence of a conscious God from material observations, he is also certain that he himself is _not_ deluded when he infers the consciousness of an AI from material observations. (Personally, I think that questions about others' consciousness cannot be settled empirically.)
In one sense, he is not intentionally lying, because he is so sure that he is right. However, he cares neither about getting to the truth, nor about arriving at a well-founded uncertainty. When this sells books, it ethically comes just short of lying for one's own gain.
Prediction: by they end of 2026, he either publishes a book on the topic, or is diagnosed with dementia.
Richard Dawkins is primarily a _showman_ who wants to sell books, and secondarily extremely sure of his own convictions, to a fault. In _The God Delusion_ he took an uncompromising atheist position partly to invite attention and attacks - which sells books. Regarding AI consciousness, he takes another extreme position partly to invite attention and attacks - again following the rule of thumb that "there's no such thi…