Post B5uM4vhRV4dJMLGjCK by rysiek@mstdn.social
 (DIR) More posts by rysiek@mstdn.social
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4urKcowukit6yO by paco@infosec.exchange
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       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
       
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4vCxKQFLpn0Ng8 by rysiek@mstdn.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @paco whatever happened to his favourite "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary proof"?..
       
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4vTyJ9rEgYxyCW by leadegroot@bne.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @rysiek @paco i so find it interesting that its clear that the Turing test is a complete failure, in that “sounding like you are real means you are real” is obviously wrong. ELIZA should have been a strong clue to this, as that sounded so close to real
       
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4vhRV4dJMLGjCK by rysiek@mstdn.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @leadegroot @paco it was an interesting thought experiment and was somewhat useful for a while.Remember it was created when computers started doing complex mathematical operations faster than humans could. People started making all sorts of "therefore computers think!" claims.Turing test was useful in showing that computers of the day did not *actually* think.Then somehow we ended up using this crutch as a definition of what "thinking" means. 🙄
       
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4vsQqDQJuQPVKK by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       once a Lero-Lero (*) Maker utters "I think therefore I am", does it follow that it exists? 🙂(*) Lero-lero in Portuguese means bullshitCC: @leadegroot@bne.social @paco@infosec.exchange
       
 (DIR) Post #B5uM4whpl6XYTqSYRk by paco@infosec.exchange
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       There's a whole, parallel thread on this #RichardDawkins nonsense here.https://woof.tech/@radish/116501663872078871RT: https://woof.tech/ap/users/115871788776439459/statuses/116501663872078871