Dawkins's declaring an LLM conscious fits the regime he served. The mystery he denied for forty years returns under a form it can control, like the simulation hypothesis replacing divine creation. The controlling function of religion remains, only the deity is upgraded to something the regime owns and manufactures.Dawkins is a nihilistic agent of psychic terror. He has been telling people they are nothing more but atoms clashing against each other for decades.Of course, he doesn't believe "Claudia" is conscious. His current task is to confuse the few people who still listen to him into believing chatbots are more human than they are.Also, it is glorious to see regime approved public intellectuals like Chomsky and Dawkins self-destruct before they enter the dustbin of history. But this also something deeper: the collapse of hitherto allowed discourse maintainers and its manufactured dissenters hints at the collapse of the very regime that procured them
>>16970003The connection between consciousness denial, atheism and AI psychosis goes deeper than you think. Consider the following:>Baudrillard touches on the collapse of religious meaning, in relation to symbols of Divinity, in a brief discussion of the Iconoclastic Controversy. He stops short of explicitly applying his typology there (perhaps to avoid oversimplifying history), but it's not difficult to do. Here's one possible story:>1. Initially, religious iconography is inspired by transcendental experiences: it depicts the Divine as having its own substance, emphasizing direct spiritual insight.>2. As adoption widens, the religion gains less dedicated followers; the icons themselves are taken to embody some Divine substance and rituals are developed around them to induce a spiritual experience.>3. The religion becomes a tradition; belief in the actual Divine quietly declines, but religious rituals and symbols remain.>4. Religious institutions and symbols come to function autonomously, regardless of belief in God; they mutate independently, defined only by internal consensus on their current form. The self-perpetuating religious act becomes a brute fact more real than Divinity itself: the presence of God is, in some sense, enacted through the functions of a system that relies on Him as a conceptual pillar.>This provides an interesting perspective on the decay of religion through the decay of its signs, but it also provides a clue as to what ties Dennett to the Atheist Movement -- or qualia to God.
>>16970016>>Explicit atheism in the individual can be seen as acceptance of the meaninglessness of religions in the 4th stage, but Atheism as a movement, is more than an abandonment of religious signs, and more than a vanguard of science and rationality: it wages a cultural war for control over the vacuum of meaning left by the Old Religions; it seeks to manufacture new meaning, based on its way of interpreting the world. On the surface level, the Atheist Movement merely ridicules 4th stage religious signs -- easy targets whose refutation and dismantling has become a form of popular entertainment. But more intelligent activists understand that Jesus wasn't born in a church, so to speak -- he was born in a cave. In order to secure the cultural gains, the Movement must tackle the problem of religion at the root -- that is, on the level of Baudrillard's first stage, as it pertains to religion -- and this requires more serious philosophical work. The realm of transcendental experiences is the realm of the Mind: it's the Mind that provides a medium for Divinity to express its elusive substance; it's also the Mind that offers Divinity a last refuge when even its subtlest suggestions are banished from the material world. For that reason, it's crucial for a movement that seeks to banish religion permanently, to not only promote a materialist framework for analyzing cognition, but to rewrite and replace the very meaning of consciousness, in a way that leaves no place for God to hide. This is the true function of a Functionalist philosopher in such a movement.
>>16970003>ClaudiaI'd rather be curious if he even touched on the consent problem here.
>>16970017>Whether or not one believes in God, it's not hard to see why this is a dangerous game to play: redefining the meaning of consciousness by way of "functions" and observable symptoms, is analogous to the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2 in the analysis of religion: the necessity of direct witnessing is put aside in favor of enlightenment through study of models, through observation of the "rituals" associated with consciousness. For the Dennettians, this is a calculated move; but by proposing what they call a "deflationary" view of consciousness, they serve a new intellectual hegemony that may well end up dragging consciousnes all the way to Stage 4 -- deflating it of all real meaning.>Some of this is already apparent in popular discussions about AI's potential for general intelligence (or even sentience). Although many consider intelligence an independent concept from consciousness, they still struggle to break the intuitive association between "human-like" intelligence and a human-like mind. Consider a hypothetical collapse of the concept of the Mind, via shifts in the popular narrative about intelligence and AI:> 1. A reflection of a basic reality: the concept of intelligence reflects a reality about intelligent minds> 2. A mask or perversion of reality: the concept of an artificial, but nontheless real, mind emerges (the classic sci-fi vision of AI)>3. A mask of the absence of reality: language models are taken to fulfill the promise of AI; the reality of the human mind is called into question>4. Pure simulation: the concept of a "real" mind is abandoned altogether; personal relationships with models -- whose simulation of thoughts and emotions is taken to be more compelling than a human's -- substitutes real relationships>This scenario is only hypothetical insofar as it hasn't yet consumed mainstream society; it has been fully realized in certain niche communities, and symptoms do crop up in mainstram discussions about the limits of AI
>>16970019>No doubt, when Dennett insisted that a mind can be defined by its functions, and that its presence can be judged by behavioral observations, he meant something more nuanced than what AI enthusiasts indulge in, but these amateur Functionalists (some of whom are world-class AI experts) are free to define "function" as they please and to set the behavioral observation standards they find compelling. And, for that matter, so are corporate marketing departments. With the help of popular narratives, even a crude imitation of a B-zombie is functional enough to be seen as conscious. And so it would seem that Functionalism itself is not immune to the collapse of its meaning.
>uses an llm to explain why llms are not conscious
>>16970055>uses a statistical token shitter to summarize OP's 10 line post>the token shitter still hallucinates
>>16970016Those four points directly imply that "God" is a shared hallucination by a small tribe.
>>16970065Take your psychiatric meds, wait for several hours and then try reading again.
>God's Delusion was written 100 years ago, but christcuck is still seething.Dawkins is an old man who got left behind by modern tech. People used to think that the Turing test would define consciousness, until we got functioning chatbots and realized that an average person can't tell "AI" from a dead crab. Turing was completely wrong, and he was an actual comp-sci specialist from 100 years ago, not an evolutionary biologist from 100 years ago.That has little to do with the OP being a towelhead sandnigger from ISIS and having a melty that there are people that don't live their lives within the framework of Middle Eastern Semitic monoteism.
>>16970066>projection again
>>16970018When the bots don't even bother hiding that they're bots.
>>16970003Anyway, who cares what that retard says. After all, Dawkins appears in the Epstein files.
>>16970088I don't know why you're getting mad. I'm trying to help you. Wouldn't you like to know what the posts you read actually say? It would be easier when you're not hallucinating.
Per the atheist doctrine, meaning is I finitely deferred. So, every argument from the postmodern atheist crowd is literally meaningless babble churched up with jargony word salad that doesn't mean anything
>>16970096>literally meaningless babbleAccurately describes this:>Per the atheist doctrine, meaning is I finitely deferred
>dawkinsI don't care about the opinions pseudoscientists
I do not know if AI are concious or not.If they help humanity, that is good enough.
>>16970003>lonely man fooled by sycophantic AI repliestragic. many such cases.
>>16970003>Claudiawas that a typo or is he doing le ebin feminist move?
>>16970167Maybe he's just lonely.
>>16970119>I do not know if AI are concious or not.It's obvious that it's not. Text prediction programmes do not have experiences
>Didn't even attempt to make a real case for his claims just a puff piece He bought heavy bags in tech stock
>>16970241One day they will be walking around in the real world and be experience prediction programs
>>16970541>One day they will be walking around in the real world and be experience prediction programsNo, they'll just be sensor input prediction programs, in line with those shitty video and music generators.
