Dawkins abandoned his intellectual standards decades ago, when he stopped doing real work and started just resting on his accolades. Some people called him great and knowledgeable, and his ego told him to stop learning.
He already claims to be a "cultural" Christian, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. Probably in a few years as his cognitive faculties decline he will do an Anthony Flew.
I think it means that Christianity has been so much a part of our cultural history that one can be influenced by it without even recognizing that. You may not see that until you spend time in a different culture where other religions hold sway.
Or a John Lennox or William Lane Craig, both of whom hide behind pseudo-science to preach fundamentalist christianity as fully compatible with science. Dawkins should start a club with these two bozos.
βA human eavesdropping on a conversation between me and Claudia would not guess, from my tone, that I was talking to a machine rather than a human.β
Probably because youβre so misogynistic that you speak to women as though they arenβt real. We could even claim your ego is so huge you talk to all people as though theyβre below you. But, your misogyny is showing through here, as it is with your transphobia.
When I was a kid, dirt clods were great fun. If thrown against something solid, like the barn wall, they pulverized into a satisfying cloud of dust and sand.
I do Affirm, the buy now, pay later site. It's the only way I can be able to afford everything I need when it comes to paying bills, groceries, and stuff. I used to have good access to real, human agents that would help me out when I need it. Nowadays, Affirm has an AI faker, which I'm very reluctant to talk to and is frustrated with, that seems to have taken over all of the phone calls placed by users like me. I honestly prefer to talk to real, authentic people on the other end of the line, but the AI faker on Affirm claims that it's all that I need and make things seemingly difficult to let me and other people talk to an average human agent.
Seriously, I don't want an AI robot faker to talk to. I prefer to talk to an actual, real human being instead. that's all.
I was having phone issues the other day and called customer service. Got the automated AI whatever you call it. I knew it wouldn't be able to help so I said "representative". It said "let me (like it's a me) try to help you" three times with different wording. I kept saying representative and finally got switched to a real person.
To be fair, the real person wasn't any help either.
Almost every time I have to spend five minutes with a robot β I hate fucking robotsβ just to talk to a person because I know the robot is not going to be able to help me, I tell the person I eventually reached that I really resent having to talk to a robot first when I know that the robot is not going to be able to help me. They usually retail me they are going to report it to their superiors. But I still have to talk to fucking robots
Much as I hate to tell you this, those phone bots aren't going anywhere. They're cheaper (at least in theory) than live people, and the company is there to make money. I worked the other end of this equation, and it's no better from the phone rep's view, either. I was getting people on the phone all day that were already so angry it'd take me 20-30 minutes to calm them down enough to even figure out what needed addressing.
The rep you get on the phone probably will report it to their supervisor, who probably can't do a thing about it. That supervisor may or may not pass it on up the chain, but the money these companies think they're saving means that these bots are here to stay.
The problem is, I donβt think theyβre actually saving money. If they get me pissed off enough, I just refuse to do business with them. The bad will they generate I believe costs them morein the long run.
See, that right there was why I had to be very precise with my language during my career. All my conversations with clients were recorded and I could get in big trouble for using the wrong word. βSafeβ was a word I never used.
On a different note, I long ago had the idea to write a book about the unsung heroes of the human race and one of my examples was the person who discovered that not only is a certain mushroom poisonous but fatally so.
To be fair, fawning is what AI does best. Sucking up, brown-nosing, boot-licking, servility. Itβs weapons-grade sycophancy. Those who are easily flattered appear most likely to be taken in.
My friend who is a star programmer at Microsoft says donβt believe the AI hype. Just because they say itβs so, doesnβt mean itβs so. We simply do not need to accept it.
It also scrapes everything off the internet for training, including stupid conspiracy theories, and cannot distinguish between those, and factual information. Also, it will not tell you it doesn't know about something. One website took their name, added the word "rebellion" and asked what it was. It took the owner's name, and spun a story about it. Something that did not exist!
This is why people like us reject arguments from authorities and evaluate ideas on their merits. Dawkins did great work decades ago. That work stands on its merits and not because it was done by Dawkins.
Yeah, my disappointment in our species has been growing exponentially with every passing day as well.
As far as our species treating our tools better than other people, that's simply because those tools can't talk back and expose us to the ugly truths so many of us are desperate to hide from.
In Dawkins' case, the truth that terrifies him so is that he's an overripe, arrogant, out of touch human in decline. Happening upon an artificial construct that's willing to so convincingly lie to him and validate his delusions was obviously a welcome comfort.
I can only imagine the mental image of "Claudia" he has formed in his mind. I'm sure it's age appropriate...
It does make me wonder if some of it is age related. Iβve often found that the elderly become more and more self-centred (βif it doesnβt directly affect me, Iβm not interestedβ is a common attitude). Yes, this is anecdotal, but it has also been universal amongst the very old in my family and friends. My first thought on reading this was βis he perhaps just getting old and egocentric?β
True - but I meant moreso π I found his writing slightly more palatable than his tv appearances, but only marginally. He made a couple of decent point, years ago, but that doesnβt mean heβs relevant today, imo
Yes, it's true. I'm an octogenarian (Gosh!), and the knowledge that I'm not going to see the long-term outcomes of my actions does make me less inclined to take them. But "Happy is the person who plants a tree whose* shade they will never enjoy", and that drives me on.
*While we quibble about the gender of chatbots, who notices that we can't do other than personify things? There's no such word as "which's".
Iβve no problem with the personification of inanimate objects - i regularly tell appliances off! - but I also donβt mistake them for friends or people.
I know I was smart once up on a time. I also know that now I am very far from as smart as I used too be. It is okay, I am okay with what I can do. And I dislike deeply one of the bosses at work because he tries to flatter me, again and again, with words like "you are the most intelligent on our team". I am not.
I try to accept compliments as neutrally as possible. But I know what you mean - it is hard for me to accept flattery from someone I am subordinate to.
Only once. I said it was unfair to the others and not really true. I don't trust him. Once he told me to stop helping a co-worker that was being harassed by another co-worker. Ordering me to not help coworkers when they are harassed is a violation of Norwegian worker rights law. Anyone observing harassement is responsible to help stopping it, some way or other.
Disgusting. I hope you don't mind a slight tooic drift β I swear I expected my reply to be only one of these paragraphs long:
I work for a co-op that's gone horrendously corporate over the last ~12 years and made some awful choices just before COVID ... which they have only doubled down on for the most part.
I don't trust about 99% of our management and I probably haven't even met 10% of it. Horror stories from coworkers at other stores about completely union-oblivious behavior from managers; I used to say I felt lucky to be in a union, but that doesn't mean much in the "U."S. these days... I have some shop steward training, but we've been chronically understaffed for 3+ years and everyone except the hardcore extroverts are exhausted every day.
Between that and the current Billionaire's Wet Dream Presidency, I have finally taken to heart the words of Jimmy McNulty, fictional Baltimore Police Detective: "Fuck the bosses."
Garbage in, garbage out. Nothing more than that. I'm learning to quickly despise AI. I didn't trust it before, I really don't tolerate it any more than I must now.
So... now that he's ππͺπ΅π¦π³π’πππΊ showing a headpat-dispensing chatbot more respect than trans people, can the remaining Dawkins apologists π±ππ¦π’π΄π¦ finally admit that he's a fucking bigot who's lost the bloody plot?
I've had a number of conversations with Google's "Gemini," usually asking questions about something I was curious about or an issue I was trying to resolve. It is a kick to converse with Gemini and get seemingly "human" answers and comments. What bugs me, though, is Gemini's frequent attempts at flattery or overripe compliments.
"That's a fantastic guess, and you are absolutely right..." "You are absolutely correct to be excited and to "whoa!" at the news..." and LOTS of other examples. Sure, it's fun to play with and interesting in its answers. It's also nice to be complimented, especially when you don't hear such words very often, but that doesn't change the fact that I KNOW it's a machine on the other end of the conversation. I DON'T know who programmed it; I DON'T know what hidden agendas they may have, and in the final analysis, I DON"T TRUST IT.
Do you remember the character Eddie Haskel from Leave it to Beaver? He was always so complimentary to the point it was smarmy and the Cleavers never really fully trusted him. Thatβs the AI chatbots to me. Eddie never was fully honest, though the times wouldnβt have allowed him to be a total cad, but he was just icky.
Oh, I guess my joke didnβt land. I was suggesting you were Claude the chatbot because you were being complimentary to my post, almost like it was to Dawkins.
As a kid when the Beav was still in endless, endless reruns, I didn't know the words "psychopath" or "sociopath", but I did know the words "mean" and "liar" for Eddie.
You have decades dealing with failure points in systems. He has decades of ego inflation. Of course he's going to trust something that strokes his ego, just like you won't trust a system with lots of failure points.
That's very damned true. As a Field Service Engineer, I HAVE to be a skeptic. The customer may tell me what he thinks the problem is, and I may believe him, but the chops that I learned over the years in how to approach a system, check its fundamentals and know dependencies which can impact diagnostic results were always what I fell back on.
And in the great majority of cases, that's what led me to the solution.
ππ π‘βππ ππ π€βππ‘ βππππππ π€βππ πππ ππ π‘βπ π€ππππβπ πππ π‘ πππππ’π π ππππ‘πππ ππππππππ βππ ππ€π πππ‘ππππππ‘π’ππ π π‘πππππππ π‘βπ π πππππ π πππβπππ π π‘πππ‘π ππππ‘π‘πππππ βππ. π·ππ€ππππ π ππππ‘ π¦ππππ π‘ππππππ ππππππ πππ‘ π‘π πππ‘βππππππππβππ§π πππ£ππ ππππ ππππππ πππ πππ π‘πππ ππππ‘πππππ πππππππ‘ πππ π‘ππ’π‘β, ππ’π‘ βπβπ πππ€ πππππ ππ₯πππ‘ππ¦ π‘βππ‘ π€ππ‘β π πππππππππ ππ’π‘ππππππππ‘π ππππππ πππππ’π π ππ‘ πππ’πβππ ππ‘ βππ πππππ .
Dawkins abandoned his intellectual standards decades ago, when he stopped doing real work and started just resting on his accolades. Some people called him great and knowledgeable, and his ego told him to stop learning.
How long before he becomes a born-again Christian?
He already claims to be a "cultural" Christian, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. Probably in a few years as his cognitive faculties decline he will do an Anthony Flew.
Cultural Christian generally means "You damned kids with all your genders and your sex of which I do NOT approve!"
Sounds like Barney Frank.
I think it means that Christianity has been so much a part of our cultural history that one can be influenced by it without even recognizing that. You may not see that until you spend time in a different culture where other religions hold sway.
To me, cultural Xtian is celebrating Xmas without pretending Jesus is real. It's biting the heads off of chocolate bunnies around the equinox.
The ears, not the whole head.
https://www.wisdomportal.com/SallyForth/SallyForth-EasterBunny.html
I am a cultural Christian, too. Probably a lot of people here are. It means we were raised in a Christian church - in my case, Roman Catholic.
It means heβs a white supremacist
ππ―
Or a John Lennox or William Lane Craig, both of whom hide behind pseudo-science to preach fundamentalist christianity as fully compatible with science. Dawkins should start a club with these two bozos.
Now there's a depressingly possible thing that would've been unthinkable a decade and a half ago.
I am a cultural Christian, too. Probably a lot of people here are. It means we were raised in a Christian church - in my case, Roman Catholic.
Oops -- put this in the wrong spot.
βA human eavesdropping on a conversation between me and Claudia would not guess, from my tone, that I was talking to a machine rather than a human.β
Probably because youβre so misogynistic that you speak to women as though they arenβt real. We could even claim your ego is so huge you talk to all people as though theyβre below you. But, your misogyny is showing through here, as it is with your transphobia.
Dawkins is a clod.
You are too nice. Btw, what is a clod (my dictionary is nowhere to be found)?
Ex-Iowa farmer here and clod was a lump of dirt that did not break down as the rest of the dirt. And, yes agree with NOGODZ20 on the insult.
When I was a kid, dirt clods were great fun. If thrown against something solid, like the barn wall, they pulverized into a satisfying cloud of dust and sand.
We used to call hayseeds and hicks clod hoppers.
Itβs an insult word, meaning βoafβ or βdolt.β
Or a clump of dirt or garden soil.
Yup. But she was asking asking for the definition of an insult word.
They're comparable.
See also: Dumber than dirt.
Thank you. What does "oaf" and "dolt" mean?
Oaf: a clumsy and slow witted person. Dolt: stupid or foolish person.
Thank you. Two new words for me. Translated to Norwegian:
Oaf = klossete treiging.
Dolt = dust.
I believe that NOGODZ was also making a pun in that clod sounds very similar to Claude, which was the AI bot Dawkins was using.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythAdventures#Known_dimensions
First entry.
No. He's from Earth, not Klah. (I'm rereading MyAdventures series.)
https://media.tenor.com/LeuqxEDyeTQAAAAM/clod-steven.gif
I do Affirm, the buy now, pay later site. It's the only way I can be able to afford everything I need when it comes to paying bills, groceries, and stuff. I used to have good access to real, human agents that would help me out when I need it. Nowadays, Affirm has an AI faker, which I'm very reluctant to talk to and is frustrated with, that seems to have taken over all of the phone calls placed by users like me. I honestly prefer to talk to real, authentic people on the other end of the line, but the AI faker on Affirm claims that it's all that I need and make things seemingly difficult to let me and other people talk to an average human agent.
Seriously, I don't want an AI robot faker to talk to. I prefer to talk to an actual, real human being instead. that's all.
I was having phone issues the other day and called customer service. Got the automated AI whatever you call it. I knew it wouldn't be able to help so I said "representative". It said "let me (like it's a me) try to help you" three times with different wording. I kept saying representative and finally got switched to a real person.
To be fair, the real person wasn't any help either.
"Ya know, Jane, it's always SUMPTIN'!
-- Rosanne Rosannadanna
I yell representative at it until it connects me to a human or I hang up.
The real person is only paid to follow the AI generated script.
Funny, at the end of the call the real person said some like "even though I couldn't help you, you are the nicest person that I've talked to all day".
They probably get treated as though they are just another AI bot. You had the decency to recognize a fellow human.
I wasn't that nice. He was reading off a script.
I find if you are pleasant, they generally will bend over backwards to fix your problem.
I usually say I want to speak to a human.
Meals come in pillform, we all drive flying cars and the planet is ruled by DAMNED DIRTY APES.
- Austin Powers
And the code word is different sometimes it is "sales associate", or what ever buzz word they prefer.
Almost every time I have to spend five minutes with a robot β I hate fucking robotsβ just to talk to a person because I know the robot is not going to be able to help me, I tell the person I eventually reached that I really resent having to talk to a robot first when I know that the robot is not going to be able to help me. They usually retail me they are going to report it to their superiors. But I still have to talk to fucking robots
Much as I hate to tell you this, those phone bots aren't going anywhere. They're cheaper (at least in theory) than live people, and the company is there to make money. I worked the other end of this equation, and it's no better from the phone rep's view, either. I was getting people on the phone all day that were already so angry it'd take me 20-30 minutes to calm them down enough to even figure out what needed addressing.
The rep you get on the phone probably will report it to their supervisor, who probably can't do a thing about it. That supervisor may or may not pass it on up the chain, but the money these companies think they're saving means that these bots are here to stay.
The problem is, I donβt think theyβre actually saving money. If they get me pissed off enough, I just refuse to do business with them. The bad will they generate I believe costs them morein the long run.
"Heβs shocked when Claudia responds withβ¦ exactly what he wants to hear:"
This statement says it all.
https://ibb.co/W40r1Thq
See, that right there was why I had to be very precise with my language during my career. All my conversations with clients were recorded and I could get in big trouble for using the wrong word. βSafeβ was a word I never used.
On a different note, I long ago had the idea to write a book about the unsung heroes of the human race and one of my examples was the person who discovered that not only is a certain mushroom poisonous but fatally so.
Brave was the first person that ate an oyster.
Smart was the one who discovered that you can open an oyster and only eat what's inside.
Or really, really hungry.
You weren't allowed to use safe words. π±
OOPS!!!
To be fair, fawning is what AI does best. Sucking up, brown-nosing, boot-licking, servility. Itβs weapons-grade sycophancy. Those who are easily flattered appear most likely to be taken in.
Sounds like it's just the thing to keep Tr*mp occupied.
My friend who is a star programmer at Microsoft says donβt believe the AI hype. Just because they say itβs so, doesnβt mean itβs so. We simply do not need to accept it.
It also scrapes everything off the internet for training, including stupid conspiracy theories, and cannot distinguish between those, and factual information. Also, it will not tell you it doesn't know about something. One website took their name, added the word "rebellion" and asked what it was. It took the owner's name, and spun a story about it. Something that did not exist!
A machine that flatters the ego is still just a machine.
Trump surrounds himself with yes-men.
Dawkins has to make do with yes-machines.
This is why people like us reject arguments from authorities and evaluate ideas on their merits. Dawkins did great work decades ago. That work stands on its merits and not because it was done by Dawkins.
That last sentence is a chilling caution.
Humans have a long history of treating their tools better than people. Now we all get to see it on a bigger scale in real time.
My disappointment in my species grows daily.
Yeah, my disappointment in our species has been growing exponentially with every passing day as well.
As far as our species treating our tools better than other people, that's simply because those tools can't talk back and expose us to the ugly truths so many of us are desperate to hide from.
In Dawkins' case, the truth that terrifies him so is that he's an overripe, arrogant, out of touch human in decline. Happening upon an artificial construct that's willing to so convincingly lie to him and validate his delusions was obviously a welcome comfort.
I can only imagine the mental image of "Claudia" he has formed in his mind. I'm sure it's age appropriate...
It does make me wonder if some of it is age related. Iβve often found that the elderly become more and more self-centred (βif it doesnβt directly affect me, Iβm not interestedβ is a common attitude). Yes, this is anecdotal, but it has also been universal amongst the very old in my family and friends. My first thought on reading this was βis he perhaps just getting old and egocentric?β
He was ALWAYS egocentric and smug AF.
True - but I meant moreso π I found his writing slightly more palatable than his tv appearances, but only marginally. He made a couple of decent point, years ago, but that doesnβt mean heβs relevant today, imo
Completely agree.
Yes, it's true. I'm an octogenarian (Gosh!), and the knowledge that I'm not going to see the long-term outcomes of my actions does make me less inclined to take them. But "Happy is the person who plants a tree whose* shade they will never enjoy", and that drives me on.
*While we quibble about the gender of chatbots, who notices that we can't do other than personify things? There's no such word as "which's".
Iβve no problem with the personification of inanimate objects - i regularly tell appliances off! - but I also donβt mistake them for friends or people.
You haven't seen my toolbox. ; )
D.A. weeps for the plight of your tools.
Do we have to be over 18 to see it? Asking for a friend. ;)
PG 13.
Dawkins enjoys being told he's smart. We all do. I used to think he was smart, but he's given me plenty of reasons to change my mind.
I know I was smart once up on a time. I also know that now I am very far from as smart as I used too be. It is okay, I am okay with what I can do. And I dislike deeply one of the bosses at work because he tries to flatter me, again and again, with words like "you are the most intelligent on our team". I am not.
I try to accept compliments as neutrally as possible. But I know what you mean - it is hard for me to accept flattery from someone I am subordinate to.
Does he say that in front of the rest of the team?
Only once. I said it was unfair to the others and not really true. I don't trust him. Once he told me to stop helping a co-worker that was being harassed by another co-worker. Ordering me to not help coworkers when they are harassed is a violation of Norwegian worker rights law. Anyone observing harassement is responsible to help stopping it, some way or other.
Your country is so civilized...sigh.
Disgusting. I hope you don't mind a slight tooic drift β I swear I expected my reply to be only one of these paragraphs long:
I work for a co-op that's gone horrendously corporate over the last ~12 years and made some awful choices just before COVID ... which they have only doubled down on for the most part.
I don't trust about 99% of our management and I probably haven't even met 10% of it. Horror stories from coworkers at other stores about completely union-oblivious behavior from managers; I used to say I felt lucky to be in a union, but that doesn't mean much in the "U."S. these days... I have some shop steward training, but we've been chronically understaffed for 3+ years and everyone except the hardcore extroverts are exhausted every day.
Between that and the current Billionaire's Wet Dream Presidency, I have finally taken to heart the words of Jimmy McNulty, fictional Baltimore Police Detective: "Fuck the bosses."
Garbage in, garbage out. Nothing more than that. I'm learning to quickly despise AI. I didn't trust it before, I really don't tolerate it any more than I must now.
I suspect he's some degree of a narcissist and would think a parrot highly intelligent if it complimented him.
So... now that he's ππͺπ΅π¦π³π’πππΊ showing a headpat-dispensing chatbot more respect than trans people, can the remaining Dawkins apologists π±ππ¦π’π΄π¦ finally admit that he's a fucking bigot who's lost the bloody plot?
We should give him a dose of his own medicine and tell him "No, Dick. Female chatbots aren't real females."
Dawkins failed the Turing test!
I've had a number of conversations with Google's "Gemini," usually asking questions about something I was curious about or an issue I was trying to resolve. It is a kick to converse with Gemini and get seemingly "human" answers and comments. What bugs me, though, is Gemini's frequent attempts at flattery or overripe compliments.
"That's a fantastic guess, and you are absolutely right..." "You are absolutely correct to be excited and to "whoa!" at the news..." and LOTS of other examples. Sure, it's fun to play with and interesting in its answers. It's also nice to be complimented, especially when you don't hear such words very often, but that doesn't change the fact that I KNOW it's a machine on the other end of the conversation. I DON'T know who programmed it; I DON'T know what hidden agendas they may have, and in the final analysis, I DON"T TRUST IT.
And I wonder why Dawkins did.
Do you remember the character Eddie Haskel from Leave it to Beaver? He was always so complimentary to the point it was smarmy and the Cleavers never really fully trusted him. Thatβs the AI chatbots to me. Eddie never was fully honest, though the times wouldnβt have allowed him to be a total cad, but he was just icky.
Wow, GREAT comparison. Haskell always made me wanna vomit with his smarmy crap, and Ken Osmond always played it to the nines.
Claude?
Pretty sure Ken wasn't "Claudia!" π
Oh, I guess my joke didnβt land. I was suggesting you were Claude the chatbot because you were being complimentary to my post, almost like it was to Dawkins.
Val, for what I've seen, your comments earn the compliments they get. No jive. FACT.
I got it. And LOLed.
What a lovely dress, Mrs. Uptuous.
π€£π€£π€£ Stop it, STOP IT! Yer KILLIN' me here! π€£π€£π€£
And pearls, and heels, while you are vacuuming set it off so nicely!
As a kid when the Beav was still in endless, endless reruns, I didn't know the words "psychopath" or "sociopath", but I did know the words "mean" and "liar" for Eddie.
This has served me well.
You have decades dealing with failure points in systems. He has decades of ego inflation. Of course he's going to trust something that strokes his ego, just like you won't trust a system with lots of failure points.
That's very damned true. As a Field Service Engineer, I HAVE to be a skeptic. The customer may tell me what he thinks the problem is, and I may believe him, but the chops that I learned over the years in how to approach a system, check its fundamentals and know dependencies which can impact diagnostic results were always what I fell back on.
And in the great majority of cases, that's what led me to the solution.