this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
143 points (91.8% liked)

Fuck AI

6929 readers
1358 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/52276726

Dawkins points out how the goalposts have been moved from the Turing test without justification and claims it can be viewed as a test of consciousness.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

He thinks Claude is his lady friend but doesn't think trans women are women. I can't believe I used to look up to him.

[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 106 points 3 days ago (28 children)

Oof, that's not a good look for a supposed intellectual.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 89 points 3 days ago (1 children)

his brain has been shitting itself for a while now. cognitive decline comes for us all at some point, and more deeply for some.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 45 points 3 days ago (2 children)

There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this.

[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 days ago

Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein.

[–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 6 points 3 days ago

But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable

[–] Pickleideas@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

I've read several of his books. He's a great communicator but he's never been particularly intelligent outside of explaining evolution.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 83 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Richard Dawkins: Men have penises and make sperm, women have wombs and make ova. That is objective truth. If you lack a vagina you cannot be referred to as she/her, and if you lack a penis you cannot be referred to as he/him.\ Also Richard Dawkins: This network of silicon and fibre optic cables running a fractal Markov chain is clearly a woman who one should obviously refer to as she/her.

(Paraphrasing a quip by @2something@transfem.social)

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

Anthropomorphism at its finest.

Also, anyone claiming something is conscious is always a big red flag (with the one exception of self consciousness).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Dawkins has never been them most intelligent among us, and it pains me that he is always held up as the "Prototypical Atheist".

Like seriously, I'm an atheist, but don't lump me in with that martian.

[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That guy describes himself as "culturally Christian".

This alone should just disqualify him from being taken serious in any way.

[–] Ophrys@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

culturally Christian atheist is not so subtle speak for being a massive racist

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He might be well past his prime, but his works are really amazing read

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In the context of atheism:

When I look at his work, I am truly not impressed. Surely he knows a few things but it seems to add very little to the actual discussion.

Like I know a lot about e.g. computers but when talking about geopolitics, my knowledge about computers is not entirely useless but most interested people are already aware of the key points of anything I could say in that regard. So I probably should not waste my and your time by talking about that.

He did just do that. Again and again. On reddit, people would call it a circlejerk.

[–] Addv4@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, when I was questioning my religion (am currently Atheist), I read a bit of Dawkins, and mostly felt like a lot of his work was a bit condescending, and needlessly so. Hitchens was a much better resource, as well as just Douglas Adams (for a sense of humor in the face of the absurd). Now every time I read something about Dawkins, it's usually negative (last thing I remember reading was about his stance on the middle east, think it was in support of the Israelis during the early days of the genocide).

[–] sportsjorts@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Douglas Adams RIP :(

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 80 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

I talked to an acquaintance earlier that is writing a paper on computer science stuff. His university advisor told him to chuck it into claude and if claude says it would pass then he will accept it for a conference. Claude didnt accept it and the worst part is, my acquaintance just agreed with this outcome saying its a valid test because Claude is "state of the art".

Shits fucked man. LLMs are automated thought termination.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

? Claude can't accept anything.

Did it find badly worded sentences that needed correction? Did it find prior work that the paper unknowingly duplicated?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Obviously in the wider sense of "accept". As in they asked it whether the paper would pass review and if there are any major issues with it. But also the answer is completely irrelevant, its the process thats the problem.

It's still weird cuz they're supposedly very sycophantic

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is he undergraduate? Because this only makes sense if he is undergraduate and this paper is just to practice how to research something.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Abrinoxus@thelemmy.club 14 points 2 days ago

Dawkins be goonin

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 59 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Reminder that Dawkins is in the Epstein files

[–] StopTech@lemmy.today 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I haven't found him in correspondence with Epstein, but Epstein did write "im in arizona with pinker dawkins venter". It seems most mentions of Dawkins are by Dawkins' and Epstein's mutual friend, atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss or Epstein's friend, new age leader Deepak Chopra.

[–] happydoors@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Could be confused with Noam Chomsky but Dawkins appears up in the emails, probably with code names half the time: https://jmail.world/search?q=Dawkins

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So is Jon Stewart. Your point?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

So are a ton of people tho. That's kinda the point - the muddy water and whatnot

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Dawkins being weird about women? Say it ain’t so.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago

Ofc he is. He is a transphobe too.

Weird about women and a transphobe? Name a more classic combo.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I suspect his once sharp mind has become dulled by dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 13 points 3 days ago

He was only ever sharp when he steered in his channel. When he smashed through the locks and started sailing his ship across the fields and bogs that's when he rapidly became a dullard.

This is a very common thing to happen to smart people.

[–] 1234@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Unbelievable, the simple point that he is chatting to a Search engine+ that replays arguments that have been scrapped evade him completely? This guy used to fight for a rational world now he is a AI bro calling his AI Claudette like that's deep?

Also, if he doesn't write a book called the AI delusion he is leaving cash on the table

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Changes code from “computing your answer” to “I am thinking your answer”. Eureka, sentience!

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

-"Claude, are you conscious?"

-"Yes."

Mind blown ...

[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

He's a dodgy pedo cunt

He's not a scientist, he's a science journalist

[–] sludgewife@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago

him and kent overstreet. why always an obedient woman. creepy.

[–] MyFriendGodzilla@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Well that's pretty appalling.

[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Richard Dawkins is possibly one of the dumbest people on the planet. Why do we care about this microcelebrity again? There are twitch streamer books that have sold better than his work.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

You're the most hyperbolic person who ever existed

load more comments
view more: next ›