Comment on Recent conversations between Dawkins and sentient chat-bot Claudia (Claude)
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 days agoThat wouldn’t work even if “AI” was intelligent or sentient…
Animals are, and we still don’t give them rights. They help humans make more money than AI slop.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 days ago
Since AI is new, opinion is subject to change. With organic animals, the biggest argument is traditional values, “that’s how we’ve always done things”. Now that we’ve invented robotic animals, and ones that can even talk, we should be giving them rights and protections like children. You know, don’t have sex with the robot, don’t put it to work.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 1 day ago
You understand how that’s even worse, right?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 day ago
No, I don’t know why you think that’s worse. Nobody knows why you think anything, because you don’t argue for your beliefs, you just kinda say random things and expect other people to agree.
I tried ChatGPT when it was new, like everyone did, and I quickly lost all interest because it’s far dumber than the average human is. But I’m not gonna say it’s entirely devoid of intelligence and awareness, because I’ve met some humans who have even less wit than ChatGPT.
And talking with you has reminded Me of that fact. I simply have to believe that ChatGPT has some intelligence, because I wouldn’t want to be cruel to you, and ChatGPT is smarter than you.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 1 day ago
Ah, so you openly admit you have no fucking clue how the tech as described is supposed to work, yet you’re totally willing to offer opinions as if you do…
Not only are you stupid, but you do not even begin to comprehend the other point of view…