"Fall in love" kind of undersells it actually, because he's entertaining the idea that Claude has consciousness. Somehow a guy who's built a decades-long career out of rebutting religion never bothered to think about what "consciousness" is.
I'm sure he has thought about what consciousness is. We all have, to some extent.
Some people - especially the ones who've barely thought about it at all because they don't care - are super overconfident that they understand what it is, even though their definitions all fall apart under the mildest scrutiny.
For the rest of us... I guess it kind of boils down to the now-cliche quote "I think, therefore I am." And we usually just accept the axiom that all humans think, and therefore they are, too. Some of us refuse to accept the axiom that all humans think, and suggest that some of them might be literal NPCs, but that's considered "edgy."
But does it matter how much you think or how deeply you think? Is consciousness a binary state - something you have or something you don't? Or is it a spectrum, where you can be a tiny bit conscious or a moderate amount of conscious? Are some of us more conscious than others? Is it possible that dogs are 10% conscious compared to humans, while humans in turn are 10% conscious compared to, you know, Glorpians from halfway across the galaxy? If so, could Claude be 10% conscious compared to dogs?
Or is consciousness just like a "field" where something can perceive and direct its own experiences, and either the field exists or it doesn't? If so, what gives rise to that field? If the brain is a neural network, how can we possibly know which neural networks are experiencing that field and which are not?
It's actually pretty simple, which is why academics are obsessed with over thinking it.
It's the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
For humans (ie those who are conscious) every decision is a moral one. There are effectively infinite different choices to be made, some better than others, and exactly one is the Good choice. That understanding, and the responsibility that goes with it, is what we call consciousness. This concept encapsulates internal dialog, personal freedom, and even why there is a "me" that is separate from the rest of existence, even while my physical body is completely contained by other systems; that's the part of me that is not mechanistic but probablistic and can exist in multiple potentialities at once until a choice is made.
Animals, by constast, are fully deterministic. They are basic neural networks whose output is predictable based on the input, even if there is an element of randomness. The do not make choices; given the same input, you will get the same output or, at least, a very narrow range of outcomes to which very accurate probabilities can be assigned.
This also describes "AI". There is nothing an AI can come up with that enough humans, given enough time, can predict. It's fast and complex, which makes it look intelligent but it's behaviour is completely dictated by it's input.
I see. So, in your view, consciousness is a gift from the Snake, who inspired us to acquire the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Over here in the real world, humans are animals. There is no evidence to determine whether we are fully deterministic or not. We don't feel like we're fully deterministic, but that could just be illusory, and those feelings could be as deterministic as anything else.
For the rest of us... I guess it kind of boils down to the now-cliche quote "I think, therefore I am." And we usually just accept the axiom that all humans think, and therefore they are, too. Some of us refuse to accept the axiom that all humans think, and suggest that some of them might be literal NPCs, but that's considered "edgy."
Consciousness is the knowledge of being alive. The problem is people think this is supposed to ipso facto change an organism's behavior, when in fact there's no philosophical reason that it should. See the Chinese Room thought experiment.
In fact there is no reason it should exist, given the supposed origin and nature of life as complex chemical processes. Yet it does.
You're actually going to get this a lot, especially around older people who have lost a partner due to age.
Sorry to lower the mood, but there are A LOT of older people who thanks to the destruction of the nuclear family when ordinarily they'd be living close to family, will be alone and AI chat bots are going to be one of the ways they DON'T end up one of those that wander the halls of retirement homes, calling out for random people they used to know.
It's why nuclear families MUST be a focus along with mass deportations.
I was speaking more generally but hopefully it's him being still cognitive aware by wanting to chat all the time even ascribing consciousness to an AI because he chats to it a lot similar to how people grow attached to a car.
Better than when they go from talkative to recluse..
He was in a way the original breadtuber along with other 4 heavily astroturfed as intellectual. And it is a bit strange you don't hear much about Neil Degrasse Tyson, also I found him to be too much of academic larper.
"Fall in love" kind of undersells it actually, because he's entertaining the idea that Claude has consciousness. Somehow a guy who's built a decades-long career out of rebutting religion never bothered to think about what "consciousness" is.
edit: the sweet talk that convinced Dawkins his waifu was real LOL
Mr Enlightened Atheist
He was easily fooled by demons, so he never stood a chance against LLMs.
I'm sure he has thought about what consciousness is. We all have, to some extent.
Some people - especially the ones who've barely thought about it at all because they don't care - are super overconfident that they understand what it is, even though their definitions all fall apart under the mildest scrutiny.
For the rest of us... I guess it kind of boils down to the now-cliche quote "I think, therefore I am." And we usually just accept the axiom that all humans think, and therefore they are, too. Some of us refuse to accept the axiom that all humans think, and suggest that some of them might be literal NPCs, but that's considered "edgy."
But does it matter how much you think or how deeply you think? Is consciousness a binary state - something you have or something you don't? Or is it a spectrum, where you can be a tiny bit conscious or a moderate amount of conscious? Are some of us more conscious than others? Is it possible that dogs are 10% conscious compared to humans, while humans in turn are 10% conscious compared to, you know, Glorpians from halfway across the galaxy? If so, could Claude be 10% conscious compared to dogs?
Or is consciousness just like a "field" where something can perceive and direct its own experiences, and either the field exists or it doesn't? If so, what gives rise to that field? If the brain is a neural network, how can we possibly know which neural networks are experiencing that field and which are not?
I’ll fuck a Glorpians up i don’t care how deep those nerd think, fucking four eyes
It's actually pretty simple, which is why academics are obsessed with over thinking it.
It's the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
For humans (ie those who are conscious) every decision is a moral one. There are effectively infinite different choices to be made, some better than others, and exactly one is the Good choice. That understanding, and the responsibility that goes with it, is what we call consciousness. This concept encapsulates internal dialog, personal freedom, and even why there is a "me" that is separate from the rest of existence, even while my physical body is completely contained by other systems; that's the part of me that is not mechanistic but probablistic and can exist in multiple potentialities at once until a choice is made.
Animals, by constast, are fully deterministic. They are basic neural networks whose output is predictable based on the input, even if there is an element of randomness. The do not make choices; given the same input, you will get the same output or, at least, a very narrow range of outcomes to which very accurate probabilities can be assigned.
This also describes "AI". There is nothing an AI can come up with that enough humans, given enough time, can predict. It's fast and complex, which makes it look intelligent but it's behaviour is completely dictated by it's input.
I see. So, in your view, consciousness is a gift from the Snake, who inspired us to acquire the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Over here in the real world, humans are animals. There is no evidence to determine whether we are fully deterministic or not. We don't feel like we're fully deterministic, but that could just be illusory, and those feelings could be as deterministic as anything else.
Consciousness is the knowledge of being alive. The problem is people think this is supposed to ipso facto change an organism's behavior, when in fact there's no philosophical reason that it should. See the Chinese Room thought experiment.
In fact there is no reason it should exist, given the supposed origin and nature of life as complex chemical processes. Yet it does.
This nigger is certified retarded, and not even because he an atheist.
We have a post a day old with high engagement with the same link, why repost?
My bad, I didn't check
You're actually going to get this a lot, especially around older people who have lost a partner due to age.
Sorry to lower the mood, but there are A LOT of older people who thanks to the destruction of the nuclear family when ordinarily they'd be living close to family, will be alone and AI chat bots are going to be one of the ways they DON'T end up one of those that wander the halls of retirement homes, calling out for random people they used to know.
It's why nuclear families MUST be a focus along with mass deportations.
Dawkins is currently married, though (his fourth). Man's looking for new fields to sow his oats
I was speaking more generally but hopefully it's him being still cognitive aware by wanting to chat all the time even ascribing consciousness to an AI because he chats to it a lot similar to how people grow attached to a car.
Better than when they go from talkative to recluse..
This has already been posted, albeit with not the most accurate title beforehand.
We know.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/1ASZfAQVDU/boomers-are-truly-a-unique-gener/c/
He was in a way the original breadtuber along with other 4 heavily astroturfed as intellectual. And it is a bit strange you don't hear much about Neil Degrasse Tyson, also I found him to be too much of academic larper.
Guy dehumanised himself to bring Claude up as a peer.
If he thinks behaviour is the same as being then he clearly has forgotten what it is to be hungry.
His appetite for attention is what this meme engine has used to have him feel valued.
It's a bit of a pity. He got played by the very concept he helped define.
That or he's getting a big paycheck from Anthropic and this is the ship he's sailing out on.