Richard Dawkins, looking at a high-definition large-screen TV:
-
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?"
-
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?"
@rysiek all I'm getting this is that Dawkins is a shill for AI. Which perfectly tracks with his integrity.
-
@rysiek all I'm getting this is that Dawkins is a shill for AI. Which perfectly tracks with his integrity.
-
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?"
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/ -
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/Also, come on, his whole shtick was pointing out that being "convinced" about something is not the same as that something being true.
Funny how suddenly "convinced" is enough of a proof.
-
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/@rysiek It's hilarious how you can gauge how out-of-touch someone is by how late they are to being laughably wrong.
-
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?"
@rysiek And this token regurgitation:
"That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence"
is such a prime example of the sycophantic and seductive nature of LLM interaction. This is catnip for someone with the ego of Dawkins. Hook, line, sinker. -
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/@rysiek The Chinese room argument is fairly unconvincing though. It would not be the person mindlessly following a rule book who can speak Chinese, but the system consisting of the rule book (software) and the processor (person in the room). Nobody would argue that a CPU / GPU is conscious either, but this does not logically preclude a computer with suitable software from being conscious. (no, I do not believe modern Chat bots are conscious, but they also do not pass a real Turing test)
-
J johnny@chaos.social shared this topic
-
@rysiek The Chinese room argument is fairly unconvincing though. It would not be the person mindlessly following a rule book who can speak Chinese, but the system consisting of the rule book (software) and the processor (person in the room). Nobody would argue that a CPU / GPU is conscious either, but this does not logically preclude a computer with suitable software from being conscious. (no, I do not believe modern Chat bots are conscious, but they also do not pass a real Turing test)
-
@rysiek And this token regurgitation:
"That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence"
is such a prime example of the sycophantic and seductive nature of LLM interaction. This is catnip for someone with the ego of Dawkins. Hook, line, sinker.@sharpcheddargoblin @rysiek Him falling for that, and then including it in his piece as proof for all to see is so hilariously cringeworthy
-
Also, come on, his whole shtick was pointing out that being "convinced" about something is not the same as that something being true.
Funny how suddenly "convinced" is enough of a proof.
@rysiek people may be convinced magic works until you show them how a trick was made
-
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?"
Answer: The view would change as I move to the left and right.
Objection: But the things in the view are too far away!
Answer: Things become visible and disappear along the left and right edges. Or not.
Example of such a "window," which is really just a television screen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcSjxdQZCss -
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?"
To him, the brain is just an electro-chemical computer. If that can experience qualia then I guess he thinks a resonating pile of silicon can, too
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topicR relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
