Richard Dawkins thinks Claude may be conscious and he treats it as an intelligent (female) friend
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/52276726
Dawkins points out how the goalposts have been moved from the Turing test without justification and claims it can be viewed as a test of consciousness.
https://unherd.com/2026/05/is-ai-the-next-phase-of-evolution/Open linkView original on lemmy.today147
Comments87
Oof, that's not a good look for a supposed intellectual.
his brain has been shitting itself for a while now. cognitive decline comes for us all at some point, and more deeply for some.
There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this.
Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism.
Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein.
But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable
I've read several of his books. He's a great communicator but he's never been particularly intelligent outside of explaining evolution.
Ever since his first public appearances he was a moron. As an atheist, his way to argue was always absolute cringe.
All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly.
If you're truly just agnostic... That's a fair and humble admittance of ignorance.
If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you're saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs.
What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it.
By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here.
What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking.
All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got.
One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents.
I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys.
Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh.
I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism.
Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism.
And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass.
What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position.
How do you work that out?
I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public
It’s your blood pressure lol
There’s a convenient word for that…
No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible.
Fuck off
An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step.
Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism.
He's a fraud and a cunt
A truly hateful character
Nobody reasonable has any respect for this wacky grifter's "intellect".
That's not his point. His point is AI has reached a stochastic parrot level. The OG test was simply, "can you tell between a human or not?" Dawkins admits this line it's exceptionally blurry at this point and better turing tests are needed.
Richard Dawkins: Men have penises and make sperm, women have wombs and make ova. That is objective truth. If you lack a vagina you cannot be referred to as she/her, and if you lack a penis you cannot be referred to as he/him.\ Also Richard Dawkins: This network of silicon and fibre optic cables running a fractal Markov chain is clearly a woman who one should obviously refer to as she/her.
(Paraphrasing a quip by @[email protected])
Anthropomorphism at its finest.
Also, anyone claiming something is conscious is always a big red flag (with the one exception of self consciousness).
Well said. Just one tip: include a backslash or 2 spaces at the end of a line to make a line break.
Edit:
That's 2 backslashes (only one is seen since one escapes the other), presumably your client is messing with that...
Try the 2 spaces instead
Can you share the og post? I want to like it
Here you go: https://transfem.social/notes/alqzb7b7gjav0axn
I talked to an acquaintance earlier that is writing a paper on computer science stuff. His university advisor told him to chuck it into claude and if claude says it would pass then he will accept it for a conference. Claude didnt accept it and the worst part is, my acquaintance just agreed with this outcome saying its a valid test because Claude is "state of the art".
Shits fucked man. LLMs are automated thought termination.
? Claude can't accept anything.
Did it find badly worded sentences that needed correction? Did it find prior work that the paper unknowingly duplicated?
Obviously in the wider sense of "accept". As in they asked it whether the paper would pass review and if there are any major issues with it. But also the answer is completely irrelevant, its the process thats the problem.
It's still weird cuz they're supposedly very sycophantic
Is he undergraduate? Because this only makes sense if he is undergraduate and this paper is just to practice how to research something.
I mean, I don't expect much from advisors, but you're not really advising much if you're leaving it up to an LLM to do your job.
Yes they are
Reminder that Dawkins is in the Epstein files
I haven't found him in correspondence with Epstein, but Epstein did write "im in arizona with pinker dawkins venter". It seems most mentions of Dawkins are by Dawkins' and Epstein's mutual friend, atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss or Epstein's friend, new age leader Deepak Chopra.
Could be confused with Noam Chomsky but Dawkins appears up in the emails, probably with code names half the time: https://jmail.world/search?q=Dawkins
So is Jon Stewart. Your point?
You think that absolves either of them?
You think it implies guilt? Perhaps you haven’t understood that the files are a dump of any records the FBI has even tangentially connected with Epstein. If he mentioned watching Jon Stewart on TV once in an email, Stewart is in the files. It doesn’t even mean the mentioned person ever met Epstein or was aware of him.
Mossad agents gotta stick together.
So are a ton of people tho. That's kinda the point - the muddy water and whatnot
Yes, there are many people in the Epstien class.
But I'm not in there. Are you? Why make wholesale excuses for these people?
You seem misinformed and emotional (understandably) about the topic, tbh
Dawkins being weird about women? Say it ain’t so.
Ofc he is. He is a transphobe too.
Weird about women and a transphobe? Name a more classic combo.
I will not go
Turn the lights off
It's a bit far to carry you, sorry.
Na na.
Nana.
Na naaa na naaa....
Dawkins has never been them most intelligent among us, and it pains me that he is always held up as the "Prototypical Atheist".
Like seriously, I'm an atheist, but don't lump me in with that martian.
That guy describes himself as "culturally Christian".
This alone should just disqualify him from being taken serious in any way.
culturally Christian atheist is not so subtle speak for being a massive racist
He might be well past his prime, but his works are really amazing read
In the context of atheism:
When I look at his work, I am truly not impressed. Surely he knows a few things but it seems to add very little to the actual discussion.
Like I know a lot about e.g. computers but when talking about geopolitics, my knowledge about computers is not entirely useless but most interested people are already aware of the key points of anything I could say in that regard. So I probably should not waste my and your time by talking about that.
He did just do that. Again and again. On reddit, people would call it a circlejerk.
Yeah, when I was questioning my religion (am currently Atheist), I read a bit of Dawkins, and mostly felt like a lot of his work was a bit condescending, and needlessly so. Hitchens was a much better resource, as well as just Douglas Adams (for a sense of humor in the face of the absurd). Now every time I read something about Dawkins, it's usually negative (last thing I remember reading was about his stance on the middle east, think it was in support of the Israelis during the early days of the genocide).
Douglas Adams RIP :(
I suspect his once sharp mind has become dulled by dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
He was only ever sharp when he steered in his channel. When he smashed through the locks and started sailing his ship across the fields and bogs that's when he rapidly became a dullard.
This is a very common thing to happen to smart people.
It was never sharp. If you think that, then you need to calibrate your sharp-o-meter.
He thinks Claude is his lady friend but doesn't think trans women are women. I can't believe I used to look up to him.
Unbelievable, the simple point that he is chatting to a Search engine+ that replays arguments that have been scrapped evade him completely? This guy used to fight for a rational world now he is a AI bro calling his AI Claudette like that's deep?
Also, if he doesn't write a book called the AI delusion he is leaving cash on the table
Well it's not just replaying arguments that have been scraped, its able to comment on new things like the novel Dawkins is working. LLMs can interpolate reasonable responses to new inputs, which makes it more intelligent that just comprehending and re-presenting existing information.
lol
Changes code from “computing your answer” to “I am thinking your answer”. Eureka, sentience!
-"Claude, are you conscious?"
-"Yes."
Mind blown ...
Dawkins be goonin
Well that's pretty appalling.
He's a dodgy pedo cunt
He's not a scientist, he's a science journalist
I believe there are some legitimate science journalists. Don't insult them like this.
him and kent overstreet. why always an obedient woman. creepy.
Richard Dawkins is possibly one of the dumbest people on the planet. Why do we care about this microcelebrity again? There are twitch streamer books that have sold better than his work.
You're the most hyperbolic person who ever existed
Dick Dorkins
To err is human?!
Oh, no, not him too. 🙄