#richarddawkins

3 posts · Last used 4h

Back to Timeline
In reply to
@the_roamer@mastodonapp.uk · 4h ago
@bodhipaksa@mastodon.scot Well put. Reading the Dawkings piece is useful for all sorts of reasons, including alerting us to the self-mirroring state of mind that is being created by intensive exposure to the Dark Machine. #StopTheAICorruption #noLLM #RichardDawkins
0
0
1
In reply to
@the_roamer@mastodonapp.uk · 4h ago
@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz "Did Turing every discuss how well flattery works for winning the imitation game?" Oh, excellent. You've earned the Pithy Remark of the Year 2026 award. (Yes, I dare the rest of year to prove me wrong!) #RichardDawkins #TuringTest #GenerativeNarcicsm #noLLM #StopTheAICorruption #PithyRemarkOfTheYear
0
0
1
Boosted by hypebot @hypebot@tacocat.space
@rysiek@mstdn.social · 2d ago
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@paco/116504499864795870 Richard Dawkins, looking at a high-definition large-screen TV: "If this is not a window, what more could it possibly take to convince you it is a window?" #RichardDawkins #AI
Quoting
Paco Hope @paco@infosec.exchange
Wow. Richard Dawkins off the deep end. ‘So my own position is: “If these machines are not conscious, what more could it possibly take to convince you that they are?”’ First he goes on and on about the Turing test like it is some kind of law handed down. Like, the fact that sequences of output tokens so closely resemble speech they might pass Turing’s test. He views a moving of the goalpost (Turing’s test apparently isn’t enough to distinguish consciousness) as unreasonable. Like Turing got it right and it’s wrong to say otherwise. And then he has these risible conversations: ‘I then asked her whether, when she read my novel, she read the first word before the last word. No, she read the whole book simultaneously.’ Let’s not ignore the ‘she’. The thing has a name. ‘Claude.’ It implies a gender. But Richard Dawkins genders it and genders it female. I don’t think that’s a random thing. We know how computers work. It absolutely does read the book byte-by-byte, in a sequential series of input tokens. It does not matter that the thing output some words that said otherwise. It is wrong. Why doesn’t it matter that the output is plainly incorrect? Where does the disconnection between the reality and the words come into the picture? This is just drivel. https://archive.is/6RdK9
Open quoted post
64
0
50

You've seen all posts