Also, why are you arguing in favour of Dawkins having cybersex with a robot?
Comment on Recent conversations between Dawkins and sentient chat-bot Claudia (Claude)
snooggums@piefed.world 11 hours agoDildos aren’t smart enough to give meaningful informed consent to sexual intimacy.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 10 hours ago
snooggums@piefed.world 10 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.net 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.
daannii@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
LLMs are probability models. They are not alive. They don’t feel anything.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 10 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.world 4 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.
snooggums@piefed.world 10 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?