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 3 weeks agoDildos aren’t smart enough to give meaningful informed consent to sexual intimacy.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
snooggums@piefed.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
LLMs are probability models. They are not alive. They don’t feel anything.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks 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.
snooggums@piefed.world 3 weeks 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?
daannii@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.