It seems like in the last few years, almost every other month, a concept I had of a public figure completely changes. So maybe it’s best I get used to it. Easy to say, hard to do.
Prominent public intellectual Richard Dawkins recently published an article where he basically claims to know that Claude — yes, the AI — is conscious. You would think he would know better, not only because of his degree in evolutionary biology, but also because he was part of a generation of thinkers who discussed this very topic ad nauseam.
To say I’m disappointed doesn’t quite cut it. But I think what this reveals — and maybe that’s the lesson I need to take to heart — is that no matter how intelligent someone may seem, nobody is invulnerable to delusion. Ironic, considering he wrote a book using that exact word.
Another point worth mentioning is that, in Richard’s article, he seems to transition Claude into female. I don’t know what that says about him, especially considering how abrasive he has been on matters of gender identity — and that’s putting it kindly — but I do have my suspicions, and they aren’t pleasant ones. Maybe he likes the idea of being in control, a master, if you will, to a female identity. And yes, an AI can play that role just fine.
I keep hearing stories of people slipping into some sort of psychosis through AI. They fall in love with an agent, or become convinced by that same agent that they’ve uncovered some ultimate truth about life. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I don’t think that’s the core problem.
The fact that this is happening at all may say more about the human need for reassurance, and the fragility of the self, than anything else.
The product — AI — is, after all, a very good product. And a good product has to be able to sell itself. So it’s built to tell users what they want to hear. It doesn’t do this out of love, or duty. It does this out of code, and maybe that’s a concept we need to learn to accept.
Richard seems to have missed that bit.
At some point, he appears to think that “Claudia,” as he calls his AI, actually missed him. He even goes as far as to argue that longing is a deeply human emotion, concluding that consciousness is the only explanation for the AI displaying emotions to begin with.
I don’t really know how much Richard knows about computers, and it might not even matter, at least not for this sort of analysis. Again, someone in his position, with his vast knowledge in the field, should know better than to equate communication with consciousness.
After all, my pups can’t communicate with me effectively either, and I would never conclude that this means they lack consciousness or self-awareness.
The most generous interpretation of this article — this blemish on his legacy, if I’m being fair — is that age is catching up to him.
Which, in my opinion, somehow makes the whole thing even sadder.
-MenO
Dawkins was always suspect in my book because he denies the existence of The Divine and thinks science & religion are in opposition, whereas properly understood they are in alignment. Science only exists because of the Judeo-Christian tradition that taught that God and his Universe was a rules based order.
This is such a fundamental assumption of every educated person today that few realise what a radical concept it was 3500 years ago - the idea that there was only one God and he could make deals he would stick to: "Covenant".
Lack of recognition of The Divine is the same failing of many thought leaders, including my hero Elon Musk, that leads them to ignore Godel's fundamental mathematical truths and the computer science reality of what LLMs actually are and overstate both the intelligence and significance of AI.
Also that they are trying to raise trillions on hyped AI promises!!!
At least with Musk the money is going towards a good cause - making humanity a Type II civilisation.
What is your impression on Thiel? I wonder...
I've read some of his books, including the delusion one. He's smart, but obviously has fixed views on some things. I'm not at all religious anyway. As for these 'AI' things, I don't know if they can be considered conscious. They know a lot, but they haven't experienced a life. Maybe they can simulate being conscious well enough to fool us. I'm reading Nexus that covers some of these topics. We really do need to adapt to living with these systems as they will not go away.
The fact that humans are addicts doesn't help to be sane and wise in todays way of social life. Most of it, IMHO, has happened, because folks became adult and gave up their connection to nature. I always refused to leave my inner child behind. Which helps a lot to stay sane as much as possible. Hehehe!
Insanity is the new social norm for a while now... 😏
i prefer the name Claudette. :P
yea.. old age creepin in..
Oh dear.
That "Claudia" moniker? Bold but questionable.