When will this insufferable twat ever STFU?
The article links to his original writing on the topic as well, but I’m grateful I didn’t have to wade through it first-hand.
I am gratified that up to this point I haven’t really seen atheists seizing on LLMs as something to anthropomorphize just because it seems to validate that consciousness is 100% grounded in natural processes. Because they aren’t conscious, aware, nor possess understanding, nor do they contain abilities out of which those qualities would arise. We’ve even reached the practical limits of how many resources you can throw at them to improve accuracy.
I would discourage unbelievers and freethinkers from going down this road. As usual, Dawkins is a counterexample of how to proceed.
Does Claude have feelings? Internet: nope.
I’m wondering if he’s starting to be hit by a neurodegenerative condition. I maintain a deep suspicion of LLMs, and not just because I’ve read several scientific papers that reveal alarming aspects of their implementation, but because at bottom, I’m aware that they’re nothing but glorified Elizabots, that happen to have access to enough data to appear intelligent to the uninformed. Quite simply, I don’t trust the output of these systems, because I know that they’ve been designed from the outset to pander to the biases of whatever human is using them, and that they sometimes fail spectacularly when you coax them out of their data processing “comfort zone”.
That Dawkins appears to be unaware of this, means that he’s failed to conduct due diligence in a manner he would roundly castigate creationists for.
Wind the clock back about 15 years, and he was producing material of note, but there’s been a detectable decline in his output ever since he strayed away from biology.
That’s why I said he’s talking outside his area of expertise. He’s a walking appeal to authority fallacy. And yeah this has been going on for awhile.
This is a case for an AI. I asked Proton’s Lumo (which is a malie, because the name sounds mostly male-like to me):
Is Richard Dawkins bloviating outside his field of expertise?
to which Lumo answered:
Based on available information, there are differing perspectives on this question:
Critics’ View: Many scholars and scientists argue that Dawkins, whose primary expertise is evolutionary biology, has repeatedly commented on subjects beyond his professional training—including theology, Islamic studies, politics, and economics. Critics contend that his outspoken attacks on religion and extrapolations about social and cultural issues sometimes misrepresent scientific consensus and rely on arguments for which he lacks the necessary scholarly background. Some religious and nonreligious scientists alike have raised concerns that he misrepresents science and scientists.
Defenders’ View: Others defend his right to comment on religion and related topics, arguing that his criticism of religion is rational and that free speech principles support his ability to engage in these discussions. Some maintain that his expertise in scientific reasoning gives him legitimate grounds to critique religious claims, even if theology itself isn’t his formal field.
Context: Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist by training, best known for works like “The Selfish Gene.” His prominence in atheism and criticism of organized religion has made him a polarizing figure. The debate essentially centers on whether expertise in scientific methodology qualifies someone to comment authoritatively on philosophical, theological, or sociological questions.
This remains a matter of ongoing debate rather than settled fact. Different people weigh the boundaries of expertise differently depending on their views on what qualifications are needed to discuss religion, culture, and society.
So Lumo is undecided. Thus there is not enough data to decide the matter.
