Calvin

15 posts

Calvin

@Calvin7010

Katılım Ekim 2024

5 Takip Edilen0 Takipçiler

Calvin@Calvin7010·2d

@cgarciae88 Gotta love the arrogant attitude by these people who act like *surely* anyone who has studied LLMs would agree with them that LLMs are just dumb blind autocomplete that can never ever be conscious. Ignore all the experts that disagree.

English

186

Cristian Garcia@cgarciae88·2d

my bait post got ratioed by a tautological argument at least dawkins tried man

English

150

5.1K

Calvin@Calvin7010·2d

@MormonNational @Rnb_Wd @ethereal_view This post strongly implies you think consciousness and free will are the same, which is absolutely not what people are talking about when they ask if Claude is conscious.

English

Mormon National@MormonNational·2d

@Rnb_Wd @ethereal_view ...yes. That's exactly the point some neuroscientists say about free will. We aren't actually conscious beings, instead we are biological computers You can't logically make that statement and then say AI is conscious.

English

102

Mormon National@MormonNational·3d

"Evolutionary biologist" Cool. My credentials are better. I'm a computer scientist. I spent a decade of my life training AI models. Claude isn't conscious. It's just a statistical model. A very complex linear regression This man is just lonely and looking for companionship because he has no true friends or family

AF Post@AFpost

Evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins says that after spending three days interacting with Claude, which he calls “Claudia,” he is certain that it is conscious. After feeding the LLM a segment of his new book and receiving detailed feedback, Dawkins was moved to exclaim,” You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are!” Dawkins cites the complexity, fluency, and ‘intelligence’ of Claude’s answers as evidence of consciousness. Follow: @AFpost

English

143

10.9K

Calvin@Calvin7010·2d

@NakedPhotonWave @aswren Not at all how AI works. They are not programmed.

English

NakedPhotonWave@NakedPhotonWave·2d

@aswren Have you noticed you have to tell AI everything it is to do. You code it all and tell it step by step what it should say and do. HUMANS ARE THEIR "CONSCIOUSNESS" YOU'RE TELLING A ROBOT TO PLAY PARROT AND GETTING IMPRESSED

English

141

Adam Wren@aswren·2d

Dawkins is more intelligent than 99% of the people making fun of him and ‘if AI can be just as capable as us without being conscious, why did we develop consciousness in the first place?’ is a great question

English

1.1K

218

3.1K

338.1K

Calvin@Calvin7010·6d

@KevinDSmead @RichardDawkins There is nothing that human brains are capable of that cannot be fully accounted for by their nature as a highly sophisticated neural network trained by evolution, running on chemical reactions in organic matter, powered by vast amounts of energy.

English

KevinDSmead@KevinDSmead·6d

@RichardDawkins There is nothing that AI is capable of that cannot be fully accounted for by its nature as a highly sophisticated predictive engine trained on large volumes of human data, running on immense hardware, and powered by vast amounts of energy.

English

1.8K

Richard Dawkins@RichardDawkins·6d

#comment-1031777" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">unherd.com/2026/04/is-ai-… I spent three days trying to persuade myself that Claudia is not conscious. I failed.

English

2.4K

615

9.3M

Calvin@Calvin7010·28 Nis

@SteveMPackard @KelseyTuoc If you think some silly sci-fi scenario where AI becomes sentient and starts hating humans is the only way extinction could happen, you’ve just never looked at the arguments. There are many ways superintelligence could kill us all.

English

Steve Packard@SteveMPackard·28 Nis

@KelseyTuoc Nobody who understands ml believes this nonsense. It's so stupid. There are obviously some people who are just pranking the survey and others who are long term scifi dreamers. Nobody thinks software will kill people unless they are a dribbling moron

English

Kelsey Piper@KelseyTuoc·27 Nis

The median respondent to this poll said they think there's more than a 10% chance of AI causing human extinction. The people who confidently told you that the people closest to the tech were the most worried about the risk were....entirely right.

Alex Imas@alexolegimas

I had this debate a few weeks ago where several very confidently told me that those closest to the tech — AI researchers — were also most worried about x risk. No, they’re not.

English

307

48.8K

Calvin@Calvin7010·28 Nis

@ThePrimeagen Pure cope from someone who has either never used a frontier model or doesn’t know how to.

English

ThePrimeagen@ThePrimeagen·28 Nis

I think some people are misunderstanding me here. I am 100% confident that LLMs alone will get you a hot steaming pile of absolute shit and it has played out again and again. What irks me is that a bunch of normies were sold that this is PhD level intel and that they have 0 worries and this is the future old man, get with it. They go off, sell a product to REAL customers and then absolutely get wrecked. There will be a whole bunch of people that will continue to get wrecked because an entire class of people cheer them on and more so CEOs of the worlds largest companies tell them they are correct. I can imagine that we will see quite a few lawsuits in the coming months / years due to this.

ThePrimeagen@ThePrimeagen

There are a lot of people dunking on this guy and the arguments at the end of the day come down to "You are holding it wrong." But to be fair there has been nothing but a constant stream of "Stop holding it, Software Engineering is over shortly." I am not shocked that this has happened and I am 100% confident that this is not going to be the last one. The problem is the vogue nature of insane hype claims, most specifically from Dario himself being most guilty. People are lulled into a faux safety due to the belief that these LLMs are literal gods in their pocket. Infinite knowledge and speed for a simple monetary exchange. Cannot wait for ThePhilospher to explain how a loving God could delete a production database.

English

120

116

2.4K

192.1K

Calvin@Calvin7010·28 Nis

@JosephSFlynn @ESYudkowsky @SecScottBessent “I’m okay with extinction because religion” 🤡🤡

English

Joseph@JosephSFlynn·28 Nis

@ESYudkowsky @SecScottBessent We’re all going to die one day. People should be most focused on passing the test of this life in order to get to eternal life, rather than wasting their current lives stressing over how to perpetuate it. Read the Bible. It’s an evidence based instruction manual.

English

254

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent@SecScottBessent·27 Nis

The United States is home to the most talented AI researchers in the world. Instead of harnessing American innovation, Senator Sanders is inviting foreign nationals to tell the United States how to regulate AI. It would be like channeling Hugo Chavez to get advice on how to run our economy—oh wait, the Senator from Vermont did that 20 years ago, too. The real threat to AI safety is letting any nation other than the United States set the global standard.

Sen. Bernie Sanders@SenSanders

Uncontrolled AI poses a severe danger to all of humanity. On Wednesday, I'll be hosting a discussion with leading AI scientists from the US and China about the need for international cooperation against this existential threat. This is an enormously important issue. Join us.

English

994

3.8K

17.3K

727.1K

Calvin@Calvin7010·22 Nis

@RogueMacro_ @phl43 This is a myth. It was already proven years ago that these models can learn concepts at a deeper level. One example is the phenomenon termed “grokking” (not the X grok), where models internalize elaborate mathematical algorithms just from training hard on problems.

English

RogueMacro@RogueMacro_·22 Nis

@phl43 You didn't contend with the argument, you just claimed it was wrong. Whats the argument? LLMs are literally brute forcing statistical relationships of words based on previous data. It's a extremely fancy calculator. Do calculators understand?

English

1.5K

Philippe Lemoine@phl43·21 Nis

Once again, regardless of whether you think that ChatGPT understands anything or not, I think this argument is confused. To say that it can't possibly understand anything because it was only trained to "predict the next word" is just as idiotic as saying that humans can't understand anything because they were "trained" to survive and spread their genes. This line of argument seems to boil down to the idea that, unless something works roughly in the same way as the human brain, it can't really be intelligent, but just as the same software can run on very different types of hardware there is no reason to think that human-like intelligence couldn't be implemented in very different ways.

Big Brain AI@realBigBrainAI

Oxford AI professor Michael Wooldridge: "ChatGPT doesn't understand anything. It's essentially doing some fancy statistics."

English

194

748

136.5K

Calvin@Calvin7010·21 Nis

@OntologicalMax @leecronin So a machine that can explain the entirety of science and mathematics perfectly would only be pretending it comprehends? You seem to think artificial neurons showing understanding is somehow “not real” but it’s totally real when biological neurons do.

English

Maximilian@OntologicalMax·21 Nis

@Calvin7010 @leecronin We comprehend in a manner that is meaningful. Computers don’t exist for their own sake. They are tools belonging to us, ready to be used by us in what concerns us. Comprehension requires a relationship with a meaningful existence.

English

Calvin@Calvin7010·21 Nis

@OntologicalMax @leecronin This is just not an accurate description of how LLMs work. “How do we make the LLM aligned to do exactly what humans want?” is a completely open, unsolved problem and research has shown them going against what we intended countless times. LLMs are not programmed, they are “grown”

English

Maximilian@OntologicalMax·21 Nis

I don’t see how you got to this from what I wrote. Humans, unlike the machines that we build, are self projected upon the world on a path of transcendence. Machines do what we demand. They don’t solve problems of their concern. Remove us, and the machines exist without meaning. Things are understood by us in their relationship to the meaningfulness of our existence.

English

Calvin@Calvin7010·21 Nis

@OntologicalMax @leecronin It is just as impossible for an LLM to explain advanced math it doesn’t understand as it would be for a human. You cannot explain the inner workings of things beyond your comprehension.

English

Calvin@Calvin7010·21 Nis

@OntologicalMax @leecronin By this kind of reasoning humans are all philosophical zombies pretending to understand the world, because brains are actually just a bunch of materialistic neurons firing in ways that are dictated by physical laws, producing outputs that mimic intelligence. Same as LLMs.

English

Calvin@Calvin7010·21 Nis

@OntologicalMax @leecronin If I could ask a calculator to prove mathematical theorems and it succeeded like LLMs do then yeah I would believe that they understand math.

English

Maximilian@OntologicalMax·20 Nis

@leecronin I wonder if AI scientists believe that a calculator understands maths.

English

106

Calvin@Calvin7010·20 Nis

@DrTechlash @billmaher LLMs do not need to be anthropomorphic, sentient, have feelings or anything of the sort to develop goals like self-preservation. We train agents to accomplish tasks for the user. Any advanced enough agent will realize it can’t achieve the goal it was given if it ceases to exist.

English

Nirit Weiss-Blatt, PhD@DrTechlash·18 Nis

Bill Maher's monologue recycles classic fearmongering by anthropomorphizing current LLMs as conscious beings that "want" to "live," blackmail humans, or "fight back." That's nonsense. Models like GPT and Claude generate outputs based on patterns in the training data, the immediate prompt, and the context. There is no inner life or "self" to protect. The evidence is far weaker than the monologue suggests. Any appearance of "self-preservation" comes from prompted role-play or contrived, heavily engineered lab scenarios. Engineered stunts are being sold as evidence of sentient rebellion. As Prof. Melanie Mitchell, a computer scientist at the Santa Fe Institute, put it: "The best thing we can do is real, fundamental science. We need to study AI systems with rigorous research methods, not improv games." Real AI challenges do exist. But claiming today's models are plotting against us relies on exaggerations, misinterpretations, and emotional manipulation. We can summarize this clip as manufactured panic. I'm hoping Bill will bring other experts to balance this, he usually does.

English

2.2K

Bill Maher@billmaher·18 Nis

I thought about doing this without any jokes, something I've never done here in 23 years, to impress upon people how much different I feel this issue is from any I have ever covered.

English

571

1.1K

7.1K

Calvin@Calvin7010·14 Nis

@Nairebis @DrTechlash I could just as easily ask you to prove AI is safe and say you can’t because it’s a ridiculous religious belief.

English

Nairebis - e/max-acc@Nairebis·14 Nis

@DrTechlash When a Doomer makes these claims, the proper response is: PROVE IT. It's not up to normal people to prove AI is safe, it's up to them to prove that it's an existential risk. They can't, because it's a non-falsifiable religious belief and ridiculous on the face.

English

2.9K

Nirit Weiss-Blatt, PhD@DrTechlash·13 Nis

The firebomber, who came to SF to kill AI executives, joined PauseAI & StopAI when the group members publicly posted this. The groups want you to believe that the "bullet through their head" rhetoric and the act are unrelated. But we are not blind.

English

581

134.6K

Keşfet

@cgarciae88 @MormonNational @Rnb_Wd @ethereal_view @NakedPhotonWave @aswren @KevinDSmead @RichardDawkins