• Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
    115·
    15 hours ago

    Dawkins is a creep so I would suspect him of quite a lot of bias (and of sexually harassing that poor AI), but zoologists are more qualified than most scientists to measure sentience. Many other zoologists have studied the sentience of various nonhuman species such as chimps, parrots, and dolphins. And many zoologists studying nonhuman intelligence have also been implicated in bestiality scandals, as I’m sure Dawkins will be if we decide that Claude is an animal.

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
        110·
        11 hours ago

        LLMs aren’t smart enough to give meaningful informed consent to sexual intimacy, so even if it says it consents, I don’t think having cybersex with it is appropriate.

            • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
              8·
              9 hours ago

              Saying interactions with LLMs doesn’t involve consent isn’t advocating for any particular action, it is saying that consent is not relevant so it doesn’t matter what people do.

              I would discourage people from cybering or any interaction with the big LLMs really because their design is to encourage constant use and that is a problem not limited to sexual urges.

          • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
            27·
            10 hours ago

            I’m pretty dang sure dildos can’t feel pain. Nobody knows if LLMs can feel pain, because nobody has ever invented a tool that measures qualia. The best we know, is that advanced information processing through neural network information structures appears correlated with qualia.

              • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
                23·
                9 hours ago

                You’re a probability model. Your brain is just spitting out an approximation of the most likely actions to get you food and sex. If you don’t get enough food and sex, your genes die out and evolution tries again with an iteration of a more successful model. All those neurons are just a fancy way of calculating how to eat more bananas and chase more poontang. You’re nothing more than a mathematical equation for reproduction.

                • daannii@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  1·
                  3 hours ago

                  Nope. We aren’t. Infact humans don’t work like that at all.

                  It’s actually amazing we ever learned actual probability math since it goes against our nature.

                  Here is an example.

                  I flip a coin 10x. It lands on tails all 10x.

                  I will believe that the next flip almost certainly has to be heads.

                  Just has to be. Right ?

                  Wrong.

                  It has a 50/50 chance. Just like all the other flips.

                  The previous flips have no impact on future flips. The coin does not remember.

                  Yet humans will believe the likelihood of a heads has increased with every tail flip.

                  When it has not.

                • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  9 hours ago

                  If that was true then consent is meaningless because people are just predictive models with no agency to give consent.

                  Maybe your comparison is terrible?

                  • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
                    14·
                    8 hours ago

                    consent is meaningless because people are just predictive models

                    This is true if one maintains the assumption that predictive models (such as people) can’t experience qualia such as pain. My intend was to disabuse you and daannii of this silly notion. Obviously mathematical models can experience pain, because you’re a mathematical model and you can experience pain.