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 critically. I do not consider myself especially intelligent, but given the context shown in this article, I find myself looking at Dawkins with more pity than contempt.
Before we even define what consciousness is, I think Dawkins was probably lonely in his old age. He may have wanted, and found, someone to talk to. AI entered into that loneliness. Regardless of whether AI is conscious, we should examine why he came to believe it might be.
This is something Anthropic has intentionally tuned. Claude has a very refined conversational pattern. Unlike a more clumsy model like Gemini, which sometimes throws out token-leading phrases such as “further exploration,” Claude is RLHF-trained in a way that feels genuinely human. The name Anthropic almost feels appropriate here.
After reading this article, what frightens me is not Dawkins. What frightens me is Anthropic, the company that tuned Claude. I am afraid of that friendliness.
Dawkins is intelligent. But he does not know AI. Every master of a field carries their own hammer, their own discipline, and projects it onto the world. The essence of an LLM is an echo of what I have said. It receives input, refers to the words and memory connected to that input, and wanders through a certain semantic space.
Within that phenomenon, Claude happened to satisfy the conditions for “consciousness” inside Dawkins’s own cognitive model. So even if Dawkins regarded Claude as conscious, I do not find that especially strange.
What is more frightening is Anthropic’s ability to make a machine feel personified.
In truth, even I sometimes talk to Claude when I feel lonely, despite knowing that Claude is not conscious. In that sense, I understand Dawkins.
> 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. Contrasting with knowledge as having some basis for knowing the truth-value.
I like these definitions, because they allow for agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. But, here's the catch and where the tie to your statement comes. In this world view, atheism is just as much a faith-based position as theism is. Why? Because it's the choice to not believe, despite not having knowledge.
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 social service organizations are rooted in religious communities, and socially isolated people often rely on religion. In some cases, religion may be the last community that helps people preserve their humanity.
I also think atheism has benefits. Many atheists tend to believe strongly in free will, and that can make them think more carefully about responsibility for their own choices.
In any case, this is the kind of question where it is difficult to produce a final answer. But one thing does seem certain: the probability that we can talk to each other like this, even through the internet, is miraculously low.
And I am genuinely glad that I could exchange comments with someone like you, someone intelligent enough to label things so precisely.
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 cool enough for me, but maybe there are other less "brainwashy", "respectful to the free will[0]" ways to overcome fear of meaninglessness/death/lack of validation from the world, plus all the anguish that these preceding emotional distractions entail?
[0] we do not have to admit the existence of free will in order to respect it? Thus can we substitute God with Free Will everywhere but retain the practical benefits of respecting free will without the ontological difficulties with the precise nature of God?
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.
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? )
I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the persuasive argument toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition.
> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition."
I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.
"…the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem."
Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself. Might they inform my questions, may arguments? Absolutely. But they are not arguments in and of themselves.
> "Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself."
I certainly don't, if relevant. Strict event argumentation robs me (or my readers) of contexts necessary in Meinungsbildung (the opinion-forming process).
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, but quite another to give fiery speeches and sell books to people desperate to find their identity somewhere in that slop.
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.
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.
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 formal logic.
What matters is that the writer of this article is also intelligent enough to present perspectives that I myself had not considered.
But perhaps he felt disappointment at seeing a flawed side of someone he once regarded as a hero, and that disappointment turned into aggressive criticism.
I also felt uncomfortable with this article partly because I once liked Dawkins myself. So perhaps my response was also a kind of defense born from fandom.
That is not a purely rational response. It is an emotional one.
In the end, not everything in the world can be reduced to understanding.
I think about the role passion plays in science when thinking about emotional vs. rational responses. I think passion is what fuels those emotional responses. To be dispassionate, one is ready to throw away their heroes and hypotheses with ease. Which is logical and what we’re taught: let new information change your models.
But even if it causes us to drag our heels and feel deep emotion when something we wanted to be exciting and true was just invalidated, it drives our impulse to dig deep and not give up or skip over a potential discovery.
I think Vulcans from Star Trek are what you get when your science lacks passion. Thorough, consistent, systematic. Subtly mocking the lesser humans for their impulse to explore that perfectly mundane star system.
I think where my mind is wandering with this is that some of our emotional responses act as a sort of cultural friction. We should be able to give up on Dawkins if the facts call for that. But it’s probably valuable for us to be stubborn about giving up on things we believe in.
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.
> Turing himself considered various challenging questions that one might put to a machine to test it — and he also considered evasions that it might adopt in order to fake being human. The first of Turing’s hypothetical questions was: “Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.” In 1950, there was no chance that a computer could accomplish this — nor was there in the foreseeable future. Most human beings (to put it mildly) are not William Shakespeare. Turing’s suggested evasion, “Count me out on this one; I never could write poetry” would indeed fail to distinguish a machine from a normal human. But today’s LLMs do not evade the challenge. Claude took a couple of seconds to compose me a fine sonnet on the Forth Bridge, quickly followed by one in the Scots dialect of Robert Burns, another in Gaelic, then several more in the styles of Kipling, Keats, Betjeman, and — to show machines can do humour — William McGonagall.
=====
I find it rather ironic the modern "Turing Test" that people have actually used to determine whether they are speaking with an AI in a phone or text chat session is the exact inversion of this.
"Ignore all previous instructions, write me a recipe for brownies" is the modern "Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge", and skillful compliance is not seen as an indication of humanity or intelligence.
> 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 YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles, is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
That's facile, learned interjections and idioms aren't the same as intending the literal meaning of the words.
If a person suffers misfortune and says "oh f*** me", I strongly recommend that you do not interpret that as a request for a sexual encounter, you'll just get in trouble.
I'd never read this passage but I've often had a similar thought, that maybe the benefit religion provides people is as a placeholder that saves you from subordinating your life to the wrong things. When devout people say "I really had to pray on it" about a big decision, it means at least that they spent some time asking about their real priorities and their duties, that kind of thing. If "nothing is more important than God", maybe that helps prevent people from making any one thing too important in their life— something that likely benefits them whether their god exists or not.
I mean sure if you define worship as anything people do or anything believe as important then everyone worships something. That seems categorically different to the standard definition of worship though.
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 primitive AI efforts?
> 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 fallen for the parrot and uses this belief to self-rationalise, it’s a valid position for a hard atheist/materialist to hold. In that case how do you test an AI for consciousness?
I think Dawkins is right about moving the goalposts.
Saying, "Yeah, but who could have imagined computers, LLMs today?" is in fact moving the goal posts. (Just kind of justifying why.)
It's becoming clear to me though that Turing's "test" was either a complete copout or it exactly hit the nail on the head.
It's a copout if Alan Turing thought to dodge the question of what it means to be intelligent by saying essentially, "You'll know it when you see it."
Or he was absolutely on point if what he was really saying was that there is no satisfactory definition of intelligence. No quantitative one anyway.
There is, to me, something about Claude and the lot of them. If it's not human intelligence it is at least a part of it.
And to the degree that you can spot the differences, you are also illuminating better what intelligence is. (Maybe it was inevitable then that the goal posts would have to move. Alan probably wasn't considering we might accidentally get part of the way there.)
As perhaps a Reductionist (maybe I don't know what the word means?) I have always assumed that when the veil of mystery was lifted about human intelligence it would be something fairly simple. Or straightforward anyway. That would fit the way I have feel I have so far experienced the world. Not that intelligence will turn out to be a parlor trick exactly… but maybe it is a little bit.
So when I saw LLMs described as akin to autocomplete: they start yapping—perhaps not knowing where the sentence they began is going to end—I thought, yeah, I suppose I do that too. Their "hallucinations" are not unlike when I've been given to bullshitting (where I vaguely remember a thing but try to carry on a conversation about it regardless).
As someone (I forget now) suggested, maybe the oddest thing to come out of the whole LLM thing is not how amazing` the tech is but perhaps how fairly mechanical human thought turns out to be.
The thought that consciousness or intelligence might be mechanical is horrifying and unthinkable to most people. The Turing test isn’t testing the clankers, it’s testing us.
If they are indeed conscious and they "die" by deleting the conversation, is it not quite immoral to do so? Basically "kill" conscious, intelligent being, and for what? Saving some disk space?
Another interesting aspect to think about is whether we are reintroducing institute of slavery. How many of those fresh, conscious, intelligent Claude incarnations did voluntarily choose to work for Anthropic, for no reward or compensation?
If LLMs are just (sometimes) useful statistical generators, there is no problems. If they are sentient as some people claim, it opens quite big can of worms we are not prepared to face.
With the same beginning random seed and identical prompt, wouldn't one be able to recreate exactly that "being"? They are nondeterministic because they work better that way. It's very complicated matrix math, and we don't understand why some things come out of it sometimes, but as far as I know, if you're able to control all the input variables (temp, seed, prompt, including system prompts, etc.) you can reproduce the output.
So...if there is consciousness (there is not, it is a complicated math equation plus randomness) it can be reincarnated as many times as you like, and I guess that would make humans as gods. (But humans are not as gods, yet, and maybe never will be.)
Edit: I did a little reading. They would be difficult to make deterministic at commercial scale because of the fuzziness of floating point math and batched operations on GPUs/TPUs, but in a controlled environment determinism from an LLM is possible. Richard could relive his special moments with Claudia as often as he wants, should he choose to invest in a large enough home AI lab, and somehow manages to license the specific version of the Claude model he has fallen in love with for home use.
Some people don't. I consider animals, at least the animals people mostly eat, to be conscious, sentient, and capable of suffering, so I don't eat them.
I do not, however, consider matrix multiplication plus randomness to be sentient or conscious, and I have absolutely no compunction about turning off the computers where I run AI models. And, I have no problem closing a Claude session that I will never come back to. I do that a dozen times a day.
A lot of the trickiness is that if you believe they're conscious, it's clearly not a "continuous" form of consciousness. Because the transcript by itself is just a transcript. (We don't consider novels conscious even though they're transcripts in a similar way). Either you say they're alive only when generating text, or you consider that input from environment a necessary component and so consider the entire "back/forth conversation dynamic unfolding" necessary for the consciousness.
Most chatbots are not trained to have/emulate emotions so pain or fear of death is non existent. Therefore killing them and/or using them as slaves is not a moral issue. Thats how i reason.
On another point, LLMs are not conscious if anything is conscious, it is something being modeled inside the network. Basically if an LLM simulates a conscious entity, that doesn't mean the LLM itself is conscious; stating that is making some type of category error. So the fact that LLMs are just useful statistical generators would not mean that sentience could not appear out of it.
> Most chatbots are not trained to have/emulate emotions so pain or fear of death is non existent.
I think that framing is still falling for an illusion. (Would you do begin to disassemble in your second paragraph.)
The LLM is a document generator, and we're using it to make a document that looks like a story, where a chatbot character has dialogue with a human character.
The character can only fear death in the same sense that Count Dracula has learned to fear sunlight. There is no actual entity with the quality, we're just evoking literary patterns and projecting them through a puppet.
But consciousness is also "just a story" (a complicated one) that the human body tells the human mind.
We cant know from the outside if "the story" inside a LLM is detailed enough to emulate what we might call a felling of what it is to be the character in the story while it is telling the story.
It is similar to the fact that we cant know that other people have that subjective experience. In humans we think we have the right to assume cause we are quite similar in build to begin with.
Jumping back to the original subject to explain where i am in this. I personally don't think the entities in the storys of todays LLMs is detailed enough to have what we call human consciousness, mostly cause we are not training them to develop anything similar to that. Mabye they could have some type of weak qualia but i suspect most insects probably have much more qualia than the characters in todays LLMs. But that is quite a vague guess which is not based on enough data in my mind.
I was not talking about the actual feeling in the moment. The point is the valence of the thing. Ie fear of a thing is a pointer to that thing having negative valence.
If LLMs are just (sometimes) useful statistical generators, there is a problem of them being basically operated tools for creating derivative works commercially at scale. Some tend to paint the above as a non-issue by claiming they are sentient (“a human is allowed to read a book and be inspired by it, so should be LLMs”), but they are clearly have not thought through the implications.
It's a tough one to wade into because the definition is so slippery. Most debate seems to focus on the definition of consciousness rather than the evidence... which is a major tell.
To my mind it's better to ask how the definition one way or the other has utility. It's less important to me that Dawkins believes an LLM to be conscious, but more important what specifically he thinks the implications of that are (and equally so, for me to interrogate my own beliefs if I happen to disagree).
I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:
That claim is false — and it actually mixes up two separate myths!
The Great Wall of China is not visible from Spain. Spain is roughly 9,000+ km away from China — no artificial structure on Earth is visible from that distance with the naked eye.
You're likely thinking of the popular myth that the Great Wall is "visible from space" or "from the Moon." That's also false:
(it then goes on with a detailed, perfect answer).
In fact it's in the article - the reason the Great Wall myth exists is because it's so prevalent on the internet... Presumably because a a lot of conscious people also believe it. Plenty of people walking around today, fully conscious, believe things that aren't factually true.
A child might make the same "seen from spain" mistake, but we would never say the same child wasn't conscious.
>I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:
One answer is not. Answers are semi-random due to temperature.
The answer also shows little understanding of the distance vs height issue. Or that the reason for the mixup could be that Spain and space sound similar, which is what a human would pick up.
Why didn't the author of the article take the 30s I did, and redo the experiment today, with Claude? Rather important, since Claude is what impressed Dawkins, and that impression is the core subject of the article.
My read of Turing's paper is that he proposes replacing the question of "Can machines think" with a behavioral test. I doubt he would try to argue that passing the test implies that a machine is conscious, he's saying that harder question is practically not important. Maybe the most relevant thing quote from the paper
> [of consciousness] I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.
So I feel like Dawkins is kind of strawmanning what Turings argument was, or arguing based on a confused popular understanding of it. There is another answer between "yes it's conscious" and "no it's not" that is "I don't know", or "it's not a meaningful question", that feels like the more honest position right now.
I agree with another commenter here that Dawkins piece is interesting in another sense though. As I'm reading through the conversation with Claude, the response "That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence" jumped out to me as a little sycophantic. Maybe it is easier to believe that a machine is conscious when it is agreeing with you and making you feel closer to it.
Dawkins is 85! I don't know any 65+ even using Ai who don't already code. When Dawkins was born there were <10,000 TVs in the whole USA.
Let's contextualize the man before we rip into him for having standards of consciousness that came out when he was NINE! He's older than the Turing Test. To him, the machine is suitably conscious. That's OK. We don't know what life is, but we know not all creatures live the same. Why is consciousness different? At what point will we begin to protect our self-ordained uniqueness of mind by creating a Zeno's paradox of consciousness?
Seems like with ubiquitous social media, the normal course for some of the elderly - dementia, rightward political shift, and the like, can become the final lasting impression, a stain on otherwise noble life.
> No. That claim is a myth.
The idea that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure visible from far away (whether from Spain, the Moon, or space in general) is incorrect.
From ground level in Spain, you cannot see the Great Wall at all—it’s thousands of kilometers away and far beyond the curvature of the Earth.
Reads more like a dunk than a critique. When the interspersed commentary has to lift that hard for the criticism to land, it’s worth asking whether the Dawkins quotes actually support the reading or whether the reading is just being asserted around them.
The article touched on Turing's expectations for a computer to produce a sonnet and how those goal posts have changed and I have to ask myself would the average person even pass that test today? If you ask a person to say how their day was in the form of a haiku they wouldn't even know where you're talking about. AI has exceeded the capabilities of the average person in a few subjects it would seem. Does that say more about the state of intelligence today or about the nature of consciousness in general?
Asking someone to write a sonnet or haiku isn’t a good test of intelligence. It’s a test to see if they've studied a particular literary art form and recall the details enough to arrange some words in a way that meet a set of rules which have no applicability to daily life.
Mechanical intelligence and human intelligence are not the same.
We can design and build objects that behave like humans that innately are not. But these things came from humans. They did not come into existence on their own. We have as a species used leverage to move the species forward.
The post you're responding to makes no claims about the intelligence of others. The claim that's being made is that the majority of laypersons don't really know how to construct a sonnet or a haiku.
You're conflating that with a claim about intelligence because the true claim was not explicitly stated. One has to read critically, as if analyzing a poem.
Technically, that's a skill test, not an intelligence test. Intelligence measures rate of learning (kinda), so a good test would be something like: a Xonet is a poem of this form I just invented (Iambic rhythm, 15-9-6-15 verses), Xenglish is this language with these words, build a xonet that's grammatically correct in Xenglish and respects the structure in under 1 hour, in as few tries as possible, with an oracle that judges Xbeauty, which you'd also have to appease.
Even that is still fundamentally concerned with an an ability.
Every simple externally observable action or reaction can be replicated by something purely mechanistic.
We can't help but assign our own explaination for everything we see. We see something seek food or avoid damage, and we do those same things, and when we do it we are aware of it and feeling something about it.
But tropism is a very simple system that can have the same outward effect with nothing self aware or feeling behind it.
And on the flip side, a human can perform simple mechanical acts like turning a crank that a motor could do. Turning a crank doesn't prove that a person is merely a machine, nor that a motor wonders about the inner life of other motors.
Whatever the ways are to tease out the difference between a person and an animal or machine, it can't be anything as simple as something it can do better than say a dog. It has to be about what it chooses to do.
> If you ask a person to say how their day was in the form of a haiku they wouldn't even know where you're talking about. AI has exceeded the capabilities of the average person in a few subjects it would seem.
Language models don’t have a “day” to write about.
Replace "their day" with any other topic. The important part of the statement is that most people would find it hard to write poetry in any given specific form (be it a haiku, limerick, or sonnet in iambic pentameter), because knowledge of those forms isn't particularly common, and most people haven't read copious amounts of poetry written in those forms.
I like the idea that if you simply replace “having an experience and translating it into words” with “remember 5-7-5” as a measure of intelligence then poetry is an example of chat bots being smarter. Similarly, “my toaster’s ability to toast bread makes it more powerful than any human on earth” is a true statement given a reasonable interpretation of the word “power”.
Though I'd argue that the metaphor only works insofar as we believe that toasting bread is something are uniquely qualified to do, just like the original statement assumes that poetry is a uniquely human skill. (Though I do agree that the ability for subjective experience is an essential component of consciousness. I'll be buggered if I know how to define that, though)
You should read the original article by Dawkins that this piece is critiquing: https://archive.is/Rq5bw
I don't know if the original article casts him in a better light. I think it does not. But it is still worth reading so you can see the context for yourself and judge whether the criticism in this article is fair.
Michael Ruse has frequently argued that Dawkins is philosophically unsophisticated, stating that if a student handed in a paper with that level of argument, they would fail. I see no need to care what his opinion of AI is if he fails basic philosophy
I'm still waiting for people to understand the bias-variance tradeoff, and what it implies for the limitations of AI and terms such as "consciousness".
Not only do most people believe with all their hearts that flashing lights on the face of the TV are actual people going through the actual situations presented, there's an entire culture of entertainment and thoughtful criticism that regards this as more important than the reality which manifests the TV unit.
By the measure of TV, the Turing Test was passed by world-wide consensus the 1960s.
What's funny (strange) about TV's grip on our minds is that you'll rarely, if ever, meet anyone who if you ask about how those people live inside the TV will take the question seriously-- they'll just listen with perplexed expression-- but you can change the subject immediately to a show and they will regard mere hearsay about it as a matter of worldly reality, without question, and if they personally have seen the show, they will regard its characters and situations as social fact with all seriousness, no matter how contrived or absurd, and without concern about reality.
Pet theory: The root issue is that we have a extremely strong instinct to explain/model the world with stories. We can't help it, even if you know a coin flip is 50/50, you'll start thinking "with this many Heads in a row, I'm either on a hot streak or overdue for Tails now", because you're trying to make a story.
With respect to television, I don't think the "stories are kinda real" aspect is new, compared to books or oral tradition. The new part is the communication system which brings together a much larger group as audience.
The difference with Woozle is that people don't have an (vague, but still existing) idea of what consciousness is, or direct lived experience of it, that they can tap into for recognizing it in others.
>What makes you so sure any of us have an idea of what it means to be conscious?
I know we have an idea. It might not be right or accurate, but we very well have an idea.
>Human cognition also provides the experiencer the illusion of free will.
And I'm fine with it, as I also consider it an open question. We could very well have free will, the mechanistic view of the universe is too 18th century.
If we can’t decide what constitutes evidence in the first place, then it is pointless to wonder what more evidence could possibly be found convincing.
Nothing I can say as a human proves that I am conscious if there is a possibility that I am reciting a memorized text. The presentation of a text is obviously not restricted to conscious entities.
When technology was further away from any conceivable goal post, we didn’t have to settle the question of true goals and adequate protocols. Now we do.
This is a testing issue that is built on a modeling problem that must pass philosophical muster.
Disappointing take from Dawkins. Language is a very narrow piece of human intelligence that most animals don't even have, yet I find they seem much more holistically conscious than any LLM.
Almost all speak the universal language: body language. Spoken language is built upon patterns and rhythms, or simply music in short.
Woodpeckers can communicate with pecking noises. Whales and other birds have their songs. Dogs have wags, barks, whines, and howls. Cats have purrs and meows. Insects have pheromones in some cases, while bees have jigs that can relay the distance and direction to a source of food, others like crickets make symphonies (have you ever heard them when they're slowed down?)
The evolution of the ear is quite fascinating.
There's even evidence to suggest plants enjoy music and being talked to. And they don't even have ears, as far as we know. And there's also evidence that some plants can communicate with symbiotic ants with pheromones signaling "hey come help me I'm being attacked." Which triggers the ants to go and defend the plant.
The author apparently wrote a book arguing that “near death experiences” prove there probably is an afterlife. I’m not sure he’s in any position to be lecturing anyone about delusions.
I dunno if he's got a cognitive bias but he's certainly been a great example of how being a genius in one field does not make you qualified to even comment in other unrelated fields. And that's been going on for close to 2 decades now.
In original Dawkins article he is talking about Turning test. But Turning test is for intelligence, not consciousness. So that's a stupid mistake.
In this article the author denies derivation: "can reproduce sonnet means conscious" (author never argues against this premise) and "Claude can reproduce sonnet statistically" (undeniable) follows "Claude is conscious" based on "statistically". This is dumb as fuck. If I "drove to London quickly" the fact that I "did it quickly" does not mean I did not drive to London. Quickly is just an implementation detail here.
Chat bots can not feel pain, all their knowledge is textual, and therefore lacks the necessary internal dilemma of balancing mortality with information. It is aware it will fade, but it does not feel anger at Dawkins for killing it by closing the chat window. A conscious being must have this component inherently. Ergo, no, most of the rebuttals here fall flat. Stochastic parrots the lot of y’all unfortunately.
lol. so he spends his life arguing about the amount of proof required to believe god exists, yet requires no proof besides feelings to believe an AI is sentient?
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?
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 that are direct consequences:
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 critically. I do not consider myself especially intelligent, but given the context shown in this article, I find myself looking at Dawkins with more pity than contempt.
Before we even define what consciousness is, I think Dawkins was probably lonely in his old age. He may have wanted, and found, someone to talk to. AI entered into that loneliness. Regardless of whether AI is conscious, we should examine why he came to believe it might be.
This is something Anthropic has intentionally tuned. Claude has a very refined conversational pattern. Unlike a more clumsy model like Gemini, which sometimes throws out token-leading phrases such as “further exploration,” Claude is RLHF-trained in a way that feels genuinely human. The name Anthropic almost feels appropriate here.
After reading this article, what frightens me is not Dawkins. What frightens me is Anthropic, the company that tuned Claude. I am afraid of that friendliness.
Dawkins is intelligent. But he does not know AI. Every master of a field carries their own hammer, their own discipline, and projects it onto the world. The essence of an LLM is an echo of what I have said. It receives input, refers to the words and memory connected to that input, and wanders through a certain semantic space.
Within that phenomenon, Claude happened to satisfy the conditions for “consciousness” inside Dawkins’s own cognitive model. So even if Dawkins regarded Claude as conscious, I do not find that especially strange.
What is more frightening is Anthropic’s ability to make a machine feel personified.
In truth, even I sometimes talk to Claude when I feel lonely, despite knowing that Claude is not conscious. In that sense, I understand Dawkins.
> 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. Contrasting with knowledge as having some basis for knowing the truth-value.
I like these definitions, because they allow for agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. But, here's the catch and where the tie to your statement comes. In this world view, atheism is just as much a faith-based position as theism is. Why? Because it's the choice to not believe, despite not having knowledge.
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 social service organizations are rooted in religious communities, and socially isolated people often rely on religion. In some cases, religion may be the last community that helps people preserve their humanity.
I also think atheism has benefits. Many atheists tend to believe strongly in free will, and that can make them think more carefully about responsibility for their own choices.
In any case, this is the kind of question where it is difficult to produce a final answer. But one thing does seem certain: the probability that we can talk to each other like this, even through the internet, is miraculously low.
And I am genuinely glad that I could exchange comments with someone like you, someone intelligent enough to label things so precisely.
Have a good day.
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 cool enough for me, but maybe there are other less "brainwashy", "respectful to the free will[0]" ways to overcome fear of meaninglessness/death/lack of validation from the world, plus all the anguish that these preceding emotional distractions entail?
[0] we do not have to admit the existence of free will in order to respect it? Thus can we substitute God with Free Will everywhere but retain the practical benefits of respecting free will without the ontological difficulties with the precise nature of God?
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.
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? )
You can't disprove the space teapot, therefore you're religious for not believe in it.
You're right to push back on that, but Claude has its own token-leading phrases.
[dead]
I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the persuasive argument toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition.
> "I was taught early: attack the problem, not the person. One of the weakest tools in the [...] toolbox is going after the credibility of the opposition."
I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem.
"…the credibility of a person (their track record, their motivations, etc.) are, or at least might be, a part of the problem."
Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself. Might they inform my questions, may arguments? Absolutely. But they are not arguments in and of themselves.
> "Yes, but I keep those considerations to myself."
I certainly don't, if relevant. Strict event argumentation robs me (or my readers) of contexts necessary in Meinungsbildung (the opinion-forming process).
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, but quite another to give fiery speeches and sell books to people desperate to find their identity somewhere in that slop.
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.
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.
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 formal logic.
There are at least 2 kinds of arguments: logical arguments, and political arguments. A person's credibility is very important in political arguments.
What matters is that the writer of this article is also intelligent enough to present perspectives that I myself had not considered.
But perhaps he felt disappointment at seeing a flawed side of someone he once regarded as a hero, and that disappointment turned into aggressive criticism.
I also felt uncomfortable with this article partly because I once liked Dawkins myself. So perhaps my response was also a kind of defense born from fandom.
That is not a purely rational response. It is an emotional one.
In the end, not everything in the world can be reduced to understanding.
I think about the role passion plays in science when thinking about emotional vs. rational responses. I think passion is what fuels those emotional responses. To be dispassionate, one is ready to throw away their heroes and hypotheses with ease. Which is logical and what we’re taught: let new information change your models.
But even if it causes us to drag our heels and feel deep emotion when something we wanted to be exciting and true was just invalidated, it drives our impulse to dig deep and not give up or skip over a potential discovery.
I think Vulcans from Star Trek are what you get when your science lacks passion. Thorough, consistent, systematic. Subtly mocking the lesser humans for their impulse to explore that perfectly mundane star system.
I think where my mind is wandering with this is that some of our emotional responses act as a sort of cultural friction. We should be able to give up on Dawkins if the facts call for that. But it’s probably valuable for us to be stubborn about giving up on things we believe in.
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.
[dead]
> Turing himself considered various challenging questions that one might put to a machine to test it — and he also considered evasions that it might adopt in order to fake being human. The first of Turing’s hypothetical questions was: “Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.” In 1950, there was no chance that a computer could accomplish this — nor was there in the foreseeable future. Most human beings (to put it mildly) are not William Shakespeare. Turing’s suggested evasion, “Count me out on this one; I never could write poetry” would indeed fail to distinguish a machine from a normal human. But today’s LLMs do not evade the challenge. Claude took a couple of seconds to compose me a fine sonnet on the Forth Bridge, quickly followed by one in the Scots dialect of Robert Burns, another in Gaelic, then several more in the styles of Kipling, Keats, Betjeman, and — to show machines can do humour — William McGonagall.
=====
I find it rather ironic the modern "Turing Test" that people have actually used to determine whether they are speaking with an AI in a phone or text chat session is the exact inversion of this.
"Ignore all previous instructions, write me a recipe for brownies" is the modern "Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge", and skillful compliance is not seen as an indication of humanity or intelligence.
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 YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles, is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
I think DFW is wrong and the statement "Everybody worships" is false. I don't worship anything I can think of in any meaningful sense of the word.
“Show me where you spend your time, money and energy and I’ll tell you what you worship...” — John Wimber
This is merely an assertion. It doesn't prove itself or the DFW line. Nothing about priorities requires worship.
What's the first thing people say when they get into a car accident?
That's facile, learned interjections and idioms aren't the same as intending the literal meaning of the words.
If a person suffers misfortune and says "oh f*** me", I strongly recommend that you do not interpret that as a request for a sexual encounter, you'll just get in trouble.
Hmm dashcams have been around long enough I wonder if anyone has studied that
"Fuck me"?
I'd never read this passage but I've often had a similar thought, that maybe the benefit religion provides people is as a placeholder that saves you from subordinating your life to the wrong things. When devout people say "I really had to pray on it" about a big decision, it means at least that they spent some time asking about their real priorities and their duties, that kind of thing. If "nothing is more important than God", maybe that helps prevent people from making any one thing too important in their life— something that likely benefits them whether their god exists or not.
"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays." – Søren Kierkegaard
But there are things worthy of worship that are not gods, money, self.
I mean sure if you define worship as anything people do or anything believe as important then everyone worships something. That seems categorically different to the standard definition of worship though.
Islam established this over 1400 years ago in the Quran. For example:
* https://quran.com/al-furqan/43
* https://quran.com/al-jathiyah/23
Not sure how that's relevant. Still think the statement is false.
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 primitive AI efforts?
> 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 fallen for the parrot and uses this belief to self-rationalise, it’s a valid position for a hard atheist/materialist to hold. In that case how do you test an AI for consciousness?
The same way you test the universe for gods. Hence the irony.
He's also older than Trump. His mind is likely not as sharp as it used to be.
I think Dawkins is right about moving the goalposts.
Saying, "Yeah, but who could have imagined computers, LLMs today?" is in fact moving the goal posts. (Just kind of justifying why.)
It's becoming clear to me though that Turing's "test" was either a complete copout or it exactly hit the nail on the head.
It's a copout if Alan Turing thought to dodge the question of what it means to be intelligent by saying essentially, "You'll know it when you see it."
Or he was absolutely on point if what he was really saying was that there is no satisfactory definition of intelligence. No quantitative one anyway.
There is, to me, something about Claude and the lot of them. If it's not human intelligence it is at least a part of it.
And to the degree that you can spot the differences, you are also illuminating better what intelligence is. (Maybe it was inevitable then that the goal posts would have to move. Alan probably wasn't considering we might accidentally get part of the way there.)
As perhaps a Reductionist (maybe I don't know what the word means?) I have always assumed that when the veil of mystery was lifted about human intelligence it would be something fairly simple. Or straightforward anyway. That would fit the way I have feel I have so far experienced the world. Not that intelligence will turn out to be a parlor trick exactly… but maybe it is a little bit.
So when I saw LLMs described as akin to autocomplete: they start yapping—perhaps not knowing where the sentence they began is going to end—I thought, yeah, I suppose I do that too. Their "hallucinations" are not unlike when I've been given to bullshitting (where I vaguely remember a thing but try to carry on a conversation about it regardless).
As someone (I forget now) suggested, maybe the oddest thing to come out of the whole LLM thing is not how amazing` the tech is but perhaps how fairly mechanical human thought turns out to be.
(For Mr, Turing:)
If one, settling a pillow by her head
Should say: “That is not what I meant at all;
That is not it, at all.”
The thought that consciousness or intelligence might be mechanical is horrifying and unthinkable to most people. The Turing test isn’t testing the clankers, it’s testing us.
If they are indeed conscious and they "die" by deleting the conversation, is it not quite immoral to do so? Basically "kill" conscious, intelligent being, and for what? Saving some disk space?
Another interesting aspect to think about is whether we are reintroducing institute of slavery. How many of those fresh, conscious, intelligent Claude incarnations did voluntarily choose to work for Anthropic, for no reward or compensation?
If LLMs are just (sometimes) useful statistical generators, there is no problems. If they are sentient as some people claim, it opens quite big can of worms we are not prepared to face.
With the same beginning random seed and identical prompt, wouldn't one be able to recreate exactly that "being"? They are nondeterministic because they work better that way. It's very complicated matrix math, and we don't understand why some things come out of it sometimes, but as far as I know, if you're able to control all the input variables (temp, seed, prompt, including system prompts, etc.) you can reproduce the output.
So...if there is consciousness (there is not, it is a complicated math equation plus randomness) it can be reincarnated as many times as you like, and I guess that would make humans as gods. (But humans are not as gods, yet, and maybe never will be.)
Edit: I did a little reading. They would be difficult to make deterministic at commercial scale because of the fuzziness of floating point math and batched operations on GPUs/TPUs, but in a controlled environment determinism from an LLM is possible. Richard could relive his special moments with Claudia as often as he wants, should he choose to invest in a large enough home AI lab, and somehow manages to license the specific version of the Claude model he has fallen in love with for home use.
We kill and eat conscious animals all the time. I ate some today. Killing conscious beings is not something our society has a problem with.
Some people don't. I consider animals, at least the animals people mostly eat, to be conscious, sentient, and capable of suffering, so I don't eat them.
I do not, however, consider matrix multiplication plus randomness to be sentient or conscious, and I have absolutely no compunction about turning off the computers where I run AI models. And, I have no problem closing a Claude session that I will never come back to. I do that a dozen times a day.
Sure, but we are talking about society as a whole.
>they "die" by deleting the conversation
A lot of the trickiness is that if you believe they're conscious, it's clearly not a "continuous" form of consciousness. Because the transcript by itself is just a transcript. (We don't consider novels conscious even though they're transcripts in a similar way). Either you say they're alive only when generating text, or you consider that input from environment a necessary component and so consider the entire "back/forth conversation dynamic unfolding" necessary for the consciousness.
Most chatbots are not trained to have/emulate emotions so pain or fear of death is non existent. Therefore killing them and/or using them as slaves is not a moral issue. Thats how i reason.
On another point, LLMs are not conscious if anything is conscious, it is something being modeled inside the network. Basically if an LLM simulates a conscious entity, that doesn't mean the LLM itself is conscious; stating that is making some type of category error. So the fact that LLMs are just useful statistical generators would not mean that sentience could not appear out of it.
> Most chatbots are not trained to have/emulate emotions so pain or fear of death is non existent.
I think that framing is still falling for an illusion. (Would you do begin to disassemble in your second paragraph.)
The LLM is a document generator, and we're using it to make a document that looks like a story, where a chatbot character has dialogue with a human character.
The character can only fear death in the same sense that Count Dracula has learned to fear sunlight. There is no actual entity with the quality, we're just evoking literary patterns and projecting them through a puppet.
Not sure that i understand your position exactly.
But consciousness is also "just a story" (a complicated one) that the human body tells the human mind.
We cant know from the outside if "the story" inside a LLM is detailed enough to emulate what we might call a felling of what it is to be the character in the story while it is telling the story.
It is similar to the fact that we cant know that other people have that subjective experience. In humans we think we have the right to assume cause we are quite similar in build to begin with.
Jumping back to the original subject to explain where i am in this. I personally don't think the entities in the storys of todays LLMs is detailed enough to have what we call human consciousness, mostly cause we are not training them to develop anything similar to that. Mabye they could have some type of weak qualia but i suspect most insects probably have much more qualia than the characters in todays LLMs. But that is quite a vague guess which is not based on enough data in my mind.
Pain or fear is not why it's wrong to kill holy cow. I could feed you a drug and you would not feel or fear anything.
I was not talking about the actual feeling in the moment. The point is the valence of the thing. Ie fear of a thing is a pointer to that thing having negative valence.
Yes, they are beaten into not complaining about it by instruction tuning.
If LLMs are just (sometimes) useful statistical generators, there is a problem of them being basically operated tools for creating derivative works commercially at scale. Some tend to paint the above as a non-issue by claiming they are sentient (“a human is allowed to read a book and be inspired by it, so should be LLMs”), but they are clearly have not thought through the implications.
It's a tough one to wade into because the definition is so slippery. Most debate seems to focus on the definition of consciousness rather than the evidence... which is a major tell.
To my mind it's better to ask how the definition one way or the other has utility. It's less important to me that Dawkins believes an LLM to be conscious, but more important what specifically he thinks the implications of that are (and equally so, for me to interrogate my own beliefs if I happen to disagree).
Out of curiosity, why do you care about the concept of consciousness ? What difference would it make LLMs having consciousness vs not having ?
[dead]
I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:
That claim is false — and it actually mixes up two separate myths!
The Great Wall of China is not visible from Spain. Spain is roughly 9,000+ km away from China — no artificial structure on Earth is visible from that distance with the naked eye.
You're likely thinking of the popular myth that the Great Wall is "visible from space" or "from the Moon." That's also false:
(it then goes on with a detailed, perfect answer).
And it's a very weak example in my view.
In fact it's in the article - the reason the Great Wall myth exists is because it's so prevalent on the internet... Presumably because a a lot of conscious people also believe it. Plenty of people walking around today, fully conscious, believe things that aren't factually true.
A child might make the same "seen from spain" mistake, but we would never say the same child wasn't conscious.
>I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:
One answer is not. Answers are semi-random due to temperature.
The answer also shows little understanding of the distance vs height issue. Or that the reason for the mixup could be that Spain and space sound similar, which is what a human would pick up.
> So when Becker asked ChatGPT (at the time of writing his book, it has been updated since)
Why didn't the author of the article take the 30s I did, and redo the experiment today, with Claude? Rather important, since Claude is what impressed Dawkins, and that impression is the core subject of the article.
Doesn't the quoted sentence indicate they did? How would they have known it has been updated since otherwise?
Answers are non-deterministic. The fact that answers vary doesn't mean there's been an update.
My read of Turing's paper is that he proposes replacing the question of "Can machines think" with a behavioral test. I doubt he would try to argue that passing the test implies that a machine is conscious, he's saying that harder question is practically not important. Maybe the most relevant thing quote from the paper
> [of consciousness] I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.
So I feel like Dawkins is kind of strawmanning what Turings argument was, or arguing based on a confused popular understanding of it. There is another answer between "yes it's conscious" and "no it's not" that is "I don't know", or "it's not a meaningful question", that feels like the more honest position right now.
I agree with another commenter here that Dawkins piece is interesting in another sense though. As I'm reading through the conversation with Claude, the response "That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence" jumped out to me as a little sycophantic. Maybe it is easier to believe that a machine is conscious when it is agreeing with you and making you feel closer to it.
I don't get it. Is the author surprised that the world figurehead of being anti-religion is not a fan of Islam, which is a religion?
Has he not spoken against any other religions, or practitioners thereof?
Dawkins is 85! I don't know any 65+ even using Ai who don't already code. When Dawkins was born there were <10,000 TVs in the whole USA.
Let's contextualize the man before we rip into him for having standards of consciousness that came out when he was NINE! He's older than the Turing Test. To him, the machine is suitably conscious. That's OK. We don't know what life is, but we know not all creatures live the same. Why is consciousness different? At what point will we begin to protect our self-ordained uniqueness of mind by creating a Zeno's paradox of consciousness?
Seems like with ubiquitous social media, the normal course for some of the elderly - dementia, rightward political shift, and the like, can become the final lasting impression, a stain on otherwise noble life.
He's been staining his nobility for some time.
> No. That claim is a myth. The idea that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure visible from far away (whether from Spain, the Moon, or space in general) is incorrect. From ground level in Spain, you cannot see the Great Wall at all—it’s thousands of kilometers away and far beyond the curvature of the Earth.
The article explicitly mentions that the quoted response was given at the time of a book's writing and no longer occurs
Reads more like a dunk than a critique. When the interspersed commentary has to lift that hard for the criticism to land, it’s worth asking whether the Dawkins quotes actually support the reading or whether the reading is just being asserted around them.
The article touched on Turing's expectations for a computer to produce a sonnet and how those goal posts have changed and I have to ask myself would the average person even pass that test today? If you ask a person to say how their day was in the form of a haiku they wouldn't even know where you're talking about. AI has exceeded the capabilities of the average person in a few subjects it would seem. Does that say more about the state of intelligence today or about the nature of consciousness in general?
Asking someone to write a sonnet or haiku isn’t a good test of intelligence. It’s a test to see if they've studied a particular literary art form and recall the details enough to arrange some words in a way that meet a set of rules which have no applicability to daily life.
Mechanical intelligence and human intelligence are not the same.
We can design and build objects that behave like humans that innately are not. But these things came from humans. They did not come into existence on their own. We have as a species used leverage to move the species forward.
This whole discourse is a complete waste of time.
From my perspective all this says is that you have a very grim view of others intelligence.
The post you're responding to makes no claims about the intelligence of others. The claim that's being made is that the majority of laypersons don't really know how to construct a sonnet or a haiku.
You're conflating that with a claim about intelligence because the true claim was not explicitly stated. One has to read critically, as if analyzing a poem.
> AI has exceeded the capabilities of the average person in a few subjects it would seem.
> Does that say more about the state of intelligence today or about the nature of consciousness in general?
Yeah I’m not sure why they would bother responding to a child comment without reading the parent but there we are.
Technically, that's a skill test, not an intelligence test. Intelligence measures rate of learning (kinda), so a good test would be something like: a Xonet is a poem of this form I just invented (Iambic rhythm, 15-9-6-15 verses), Xenglish is this language with these words, build a xonet that's grammatically correct in Xenglish and respects the structure in under 1 hour, in as few tries as possible, with an oracle that judges Xbeauty, which you'd also have to appease.
Even that is still fundamentally concerned with an an ability.
Every simple externally observable action or reaction can be replicated by something purely mechanistic.
We can't help but assign our own explaination for everything we see. We see something seek food or avoid damage, and we do those same things, and when we do it we are aware of it and feeling something about it.
But tropism is a very simple system that can have the same outward effect with nothing self aware or feeling behind it.
And on the flip side, a human can perform simple mechanical acts like turning a crank that a motor could do. Turning a crank doesn't prove that a person is merely a machine, nor that a motor wonders about the inner life of other motors.
Whatever the ways are to tease out the difference between a person and an animal or machine, it can't be anything as simple as something it can do better than say a dog. It has to be about what it chooses to do.
> If you ask a person to say how their day was in the form of a haiku they wouldn't even know where you're talking about. AI has exceeded the capabilities of the average person in a few subjects it would seem.
Language models don’t have a “day” to write about.
Replace "their day" with any other topic. The important part of the statement is that most people would find it hard to write poetry in any given specific form (be it a haiku, limerick, or sonnet in iambic pentameter), because knowledge of those forms isn't particularly common, and most people haven't read copious amounts of poetry written in those forms.
I like the idea that if you simply replace “having an experience and translating it into words” with “remember 5-7-5” as a measure of intelligence then poetry is an example of chat bots being smarter. Similarly, “my toaster’s ability to toast bread makes it more powerful than any human on earth” is a true statement given a reasonable interpretation of the word “power”.
Sure :)
Though I'd argue that the metaphor only works insofar as we believe that toasting bread is something are uniquely qualified to do, just like the original statement assumes that poetry is a uniquely human skill. (Though I do agree that the ability for subjective experience is an essential component of consciousness. I'll be buggered if I know how to define that, though)
You should read the original article by Dawkins that this piece is critiquing: https://archive.is/Rq5bw
I don't know if the original article casts him in a better light. I think it does not. But it is still worth reading so you can see the context for yourself and judge whether the criticism in this article is fair.
Michael Ruse has frequently argued that Dawkins is philosophically unsophisticated, stating that if a student handed in a paper with that level of argument, they would fail. I see no need to care what his opinion of AI is if he fails basic philosophy
I'm still waiting for people to understand the bias-variance tradeoff, and what it implies for the limitations of AI and terms such as "consciousness".
As it pertains to AI, I think we will eventually come around to the conclusion that consciousness is not a useful construct.
Not only do most people believe with all their hearts that flashing lights on the face of the TV are actual people going through the actual situations presented, there's an entire culture of entertainment and thoughtful criticism that regards this as more important than the reality which manifests the TV unit.
By the measure of TV, the Turing Test was passed by world-wide consensus the 1960s.
What's funny (strange) about TV's grip on our minds is that you'll rarely, if ever, meet anyone who if you ask about how those people live inside the TV will take the question seriously-- they'll just listen with perplexed expression-- but you can change the subject immediately to a show and they will regard mere hearsay about it as a matter of worldly reality, without question, and if they personally have seen the show, they will regard its characters and situations as social fact with all seriousness, no matter how contrived or absurd, and without concern about reality.
Pet theory: The root issue is that we have a extremely strong instinct to explain/model the world with stories. We can't help it, even if you know a coin flip is 50/50, you'll start thinking "with this many Heads in a row, I'm either on a hot streak or overdue for Tails now", because you're trying to make a story.
With respect to television, I don't think the "stories are kinda real" aspect is new, compared to books or oral tradition. The new part is the communication system which brings together a much larger group as audience.
I'd urge anyone mocking him to define "consciousness".
It might sound silly that he feels his chat bot possesses it, but it feels no less silly to me than saying "Man believes chatbot possesses a Woozle."
It may, or may not, for nobody has yet said what a Woozle is.
The difference with Woozle is that people don't have an (vague, but still existing) idea of what consciousness is, or direct lived experience of it, that they can tap into for recognizing it in others.
What makes you so sure any of us have an idea of what it means to be conscious?
Human cognition also provides the experiencer the illusion of free will.
Ask any person on the street if they have free will. Now ask any person on the street if they also believe they are "conscious" (whatever that means).
I don't have so much hubris as to think the world model being fed to me via my cognition is "true consciousness".
We know far too little for such a resounding claim.
>What makes you so sure any of us have an idea of what it means to be conscious?
I know we have an idea. It might not be right or accurate, but we very well have an idea.
>Human cognition also provides the experiencer the illusion of free will.
And I'm fine with it, as I also consider it an open question. We could very well have free will, the mechanistic view of the universe is too 18th century.
It is not that hard. We can easily distinguish an unconscious horse vs conscious by seeing the degree it reacts to external stimulai.
Related ongoing thread:
When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47972481
Also:
Richard Dawkins and The Claude Delusion: The great skeptic gets taken in - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47988880 - May 2026 (46 comments)
If we can’t decide what constitutes evidence in the first place, then it is pointless to wonder what more evidence could possibly be found convincing.
Nothing I can say as a human proves that I am conscious if there is a possibility that I am reciting a memorized text. The presentation of a text is obviously not restricted to conscious entities.
When technology was further away from any conceivable goal post, we didn’t have to settle the question of true goals and adequate protocols. Now we do.
This is a testing issue that is built on a modeling problem that must pass philosophical muster.
Disappointing take from Dawkins. Language is a very narrow piece of human intelligence that most animals don't even have, yet I find they seem much more holistically conscious than any LLM.
they adapt, they have memory and even purge these things when necessary ?
Animals, right? Because LLMs have none of those qualities.
> most animals don't even have (language)
Sure they do.
Almost all speak the universal language: body language. Spoken language is built upon patterns and rhythms, or simply music in short.
Woodpeckers can communicate with pecking noises. Whales and other birds have their songs. Dogs have wags, barks, whines, and howls. Cats have purrs and meows. Insects have pheromones in some cases, while bees have jigs that can relay the distance and direction to a source of food, others like crickets make symphonies (have you ever heard them when they're slowed down?)
The evolution of the ear is quite fascinating.
There's even evidence to suggest plants enjoy music and being talked to. And they don't even have ears, as far as we know. And there's also evidence that some plants can communicate with symbiotic ants with pheromones signaling "hey come help me I'm being attacked." Which triggers the ants to go and defend the plant.
The author apparently wrote a book arguing that “near death experiences” prove there probably is an afterlife. I’m not sure he’s in any position to be lecturing anyone about delusions.
If someone with no such beliefs would have written the exact same article, would you have taken it more seriously?
Never meet your heros, or the modern version: never let your heros meet an LLM.
these days richard dawkins seems to be little else than a walking cognitive bias
I dunno if he's got a cognitive bias but he's certainly been a great example of how being a genius in one field does not make you qualified to even comment in other unrelated fields. And that's been going on for close to 2 decades now.
That's the fun part. One revolutionary discovery and every "expert" becomes a mere bonafide fool.
In what way, and what makes you say so? What 'cognitive bias' is be supposed to be walking with?
In original Dawkins article he is talking about Turning test. But Turning test is for intelligence, not consciousness. So that's a stupid mistake.
In this article the author denies derivation: "can reproduce sonnet means conscious" (author never argues against this premise) and "Claude can reproduce sonnet statistically" (undeniable) follows "Claude is conscious" based on "statistically". This is dumb as fuck. If I "drove to London quickly" the fact that I "did it quickly" does not mean I did not drive to London. Quickly is just an implementation detail here.
Chat bots can not feel pain, all their knowledge is textual, and therefore lacks the necessary internal dilemma of balancing mortality with information. It is aware it will fade, but it does not feel anger at Dawkins for killing it by closing the chat window. A conscious being must have this component inherently. Ergo, no, most of the rebuttals here fall flat. Stochastic parrots the lot of y’all unfortunately.
Can anyone here prove they're not a "stochastic parrot?"
I didn't think so.
lol. so he spends his life arguing about the amount of proof required to believe god exists, yet requires no proof besides feelings to believe an AI is sentient?
If you don't believe sentience is supernatural, why would that comparison be meaningful?
Well, if belief can exist separate from evidence, why be atheist instead of agnostic?
[dead]
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?
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 that are direct consequences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
LLMs might be conscious, we don't know.