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

When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 450 posts

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#431

Post by unparagoned »

birdsongs wrote: post #173
qnleigh wrote: post #155

It's easy, and very tempting to dismiss this sort of thing. But given how little we know about the human brain, let alone consciousness, I don't see how we can be confident that LLMs aren't conscious. I've had a lot of thoughts and conversations over the years that changed my mind on what consciousness likely requires. One was the realization that a purely mechanical computer can, in principle simulate the laws of ph…

Can computers simulate all the laws, even theoretically? We don't have a final theory / unification of all the physics frameworks, so I'm not sure if that claim can be made. Ex: the standard model and gravity.

We know the physics at which the brain operates, a deeper uncomputable foundation theory isn’t going to change that. An analogy is we know if you drop a ball it falls down, knowledge of some deeper quantum gravity theory isn’t going to mean ball’s actually fall up.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#432

Post by unparagoned »

rellfy wrote: post #16
SuperV1234 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not fundamentally different. Chemical reactions are just math.

Well, (in our current understanding) yes, but there may be underlying aspects of physics and the universe that we do not understand that could be the reason consciousness kicks in. It could turn out that LLMs do work similarly to how humans think, but as an abstracted system it does not have the low level requirements for consciousness.

I think we know enough that consciousness acts at the neuron/brain level new physics isn’t going to provide any more insights

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#433

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mrec wrote: post #425
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the genetic definition is that it means that nobody knows whether anyone is a man or a woman until they get tested. Nobody pre-genetic testing ever knew. Most people alive today don't know. And that's clearly not how society works, or ever has worked.

I think we're in severe danger of spiralling toward epistemology here, but there's a huge difference between "nobody knows" in the sense you're using it and "nobody has any idea". Society (or more broadly biology) doesn't need us to get it right 100% of the time; these are very, very rare conditions. Going off secondary sexual characteristics is going to get you the right answer as near as dammit every time, especial…

Unfortunately, all the political noise is about gender rather than sex. Reproduction doesn't even ever the conversation. It's all about which restroom you should use or which sports team you should be on.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#434

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

qsera wrote: post #426
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more of an argument. If the mathematical description somehow created fire, it would have been closer to an actual spell, but it doesn't, which would suggest that description is not accurate or the argument is flawed ( edit: or both ). The flaw I noted puts both your and my argument in a difficult place, because it, among other things, exposes your surety about 'ultimately'. I am engaging with you, because, whil…

> I don't want to pour cold water on an inquisitive mind.. Thanks, I appreciate that. > If the mathematical description somehow created fire.. The mathematical description does not create a fire. It describes a consciousness that is observing a fire. I am not elaborating so as to not muddle the above point.

I was going to offer an immediate, reactive response, but I decided against it. I will sleep on it a little. As I said, the concept is interesting enough that, even if wrong, it is worth contemplating.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#435

Post by mrec »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #433
mrec wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're in severe danger of spiralling toward epistemology here, but there's a huge difference between "nobody knows" in the sense you're using it and "nobody has any idea". Society (or more broadly biology) doesn't need us to get it right 100% of the time; these are very, very rare conditions. Going off secondary sexual characteristics is going to get you the right answer as near as dammit every time, especial…

Unfortunately, all the political noise is about gender rather than sex. Reproduction doesn't even ever the conversation. It's all about which restroom you should use or which sports team you should be on.

Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#436

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mrec wrote: post #435
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, all the political noise is about gender rather than sex. Reproduction doesn't even ever the conversation. It's all about which restroom you should use or which sports team you should be on.

Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.

Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#437

Post by wetil »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #436
mrec wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.

Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?

Why are you being prejudiced against hairy women? No reason why they shouldn't be using female facilities.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#438

Post by mrec »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #436
mrec wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.

Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?

In the UK, a recent Supreme Court decision has clarified that "sex" in this sort of context refers to biological sex, and is not affected by any shenanigans with birth certificate changes or GRCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_S...

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#439

Post by kjkjadksj »

dpark wrote: post #322
kjkjadksj wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for the sun. Why not worship Ra?

Lots of evidence for the Sun. Less so Ra.

Seems the scientific evidence has just been proving existence of Ra in a round about way. The idea of Ra being the source of life is actually supported by the scientific evidence. The egyptians only seemed to have mischaracterized the nature of the sun perhaps, but not its effects on the planet or its role in life. Which is interesting.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#440

Post by amanaplanacanal »

wetil wrote: post #437
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?

Why are you being prejudiced against hairy women? No reason why they shouldn't be using female facilities.

I would guess both the trans men and the cis women in question are going to be uncomfortable with this. But it's possible I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist in the places where these bathroom bills are being passed.

My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.

Post reply on HN