Dawkins takes a functionalist position, which is the dominant perspective in biological research.
The author makes it easy for himself by degrading the philosophical/scientific discussion into a political rant.
Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
31–40 of 60 posts
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#32The 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 peopl…
> "Dawkins did not proclaim Claude conscious" This is true in the literal sense that Dawkins didn't explicitly say "Claude is conscious", but when he says things like "Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?" I find it difficult to assign good faith to someone who asserts that Dawkins "did not proclaim Claude conscious." And while I have some sympathy for the idea that consciousnes…
I find it hard to assign good faith to someone who says the question "Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?" is the same as proclaiming "AI is conscious"! But assuming good faith, I think he is genuinely asking a question, challenging his own beliefs, and keeping his mind open. He seems throughout like he's not convinced it's conscious. The thing he's struggling with is coming up with an empirical, observable reason as to why not. And this lack of ability to come up with a reason is what prompted the question. And it's an interesting question; I too don't think they're fully conscious, but I think I would struggle with an observable argument as to why not. (Before reading his article, I wouldn't have used the word "fully")
This perspective is unique, and makes sense for someone as staunchly scientific as Dawkins. Science is all about observable phenomena and empirical evidence. His background studying animals also reinforces this perspective, since he's used to interacting with creatures on the "consciousness spectrum".
If you're open to consciousness being a spectrum and that AI might have some sort of conscious, then I think you're largely aligned with what Dawkins was musing in this article.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#33To 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
This is essentially every philosophical argument. Personally, I find them valuable even if they can never get us to consensus.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
This is essentially every philosophical argument. Personally, I find them valuable even if they can never get us to consensus.
Sure but thats a different context than pop-articles.
The whole tradition around studying and debating this is lost when it becomes a public debate
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is essentially every philosophical argument. Personally, I find them valuable even if they can never get us to consensus.
Sure but thats a different context than pop-articles. The whole tradition around studying and debating this is lost when it becomes a public debate
I'm not following. Should the public be kept away from philosophy?
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a philosophical category, not something you can measure. You can experience it in yourself, but not prove its existence in others
And the moral implication of that is...
If I had to draw moral conclusions here, I'd say that looking for scientific evidence of consciousness is a waste of time, but ascribing it to a bunch of matrices can be as detrimental to one's thinking as denying it in other people.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#37The 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 peopl…
Its in the headline. Also he talks about the persona he assigned to his chat like "she" was conscious (e.g. "she was pleased")
That's a good example of my point about reading comprehension. The headline is "When Dawkins met Claude Could this AI be conscious?".
That's a question, not a statement. By Betteridge's Law of Headlines, which states that any headline ending in a question mark can be answered "no", this would even justify claiming that he was denying that Claude was conscious.
But he isn't making either claim; instead, he's asking the much more interesting questions: if p-zombies are possible, should we expect them to be more or less likely to evolve? Why? What is the difference? Why does it matter to evolution?
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its in the headline. Also he talks about the persona he assigned to his chat like "she" was conscious (e.g. "she was pleased")
That's a good example of my point about reading comprehension. The headline is "When Dawkins met Claude Could this AI be conscious?". That's a question, not a statement. By Betteridge's Law of Headlines, which states that any headline ending in a question mark can be answered "no", this would even justify claiming that he was denying that Claude was conscious. But he isn't making either claim; instead, he's asking th…
They seem to have changed the headline. The one in the archived article the post quotes is "Is AI the next phase of evolution? Claude appears to be conscious". Again, "appears to be" is not exactly the same as "is", but the post in question also quotes his Twitter extensively, and it's clear that Dawkins is acting as if he believed in Claude's consciousness.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#39The 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 peopl…
> "Dawkins did not proclaim Claude conscious" This is true in the literal sense that Dawkins didn't explicitly say "Claude is conscious", but when he says things like "Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?" I find it difficult to assign good faith to someone who asserts that Dawkins "did not proclaim Claude conscious." And while I have some sympathy for the idea that consciousnes…
>> "Dawkins did not proclaim Claude conscious"
> This is true in the literal sense that Dawkins didn't explicitly say "Claude is conscious"
It is true not only in the literal sense, but in the rhetorical sense as well. It's leading up to an interesting set of question that he then asks. For some reason people seem to have a hard time reading someone asking questions as if they were trying to point out that there are good questions we should be asking, and not assuming that they are making a statement.
I used to accept the Turing test.
I can see how people might claim it has been passed by LLMs.
I don't think that LLMs are conscious.
Dawkins notices that I am confused.
Re: Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion
#40These 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…
There is no true scientific discussion possible about the nature of consciousness. This is squarely in the realm of philosophy. I personally think its moot to discuss whether LLMs are conscious. If they are, then we have diluted the definition to something that has no relevance to morality or concepts like life and death. Lets just take them for what they are, if we feel like they deserve to be treated with respect t…
I'm not sure it's that beyond science. Some aspects can be a bit woo but there are practical questions like what anesthetics render you unconscious for surgery and how that interacts with the brain parts involved.