“If these machines are not conscious, what more could it possibly take to convince you that they are?” That’s the question that esteemed scientist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins asks in a new column at UnHerd , after becoming convinced that his AI chatbot (Anthropic’s “Claude”) is having genuine conversations with him.

Dawkins is hardly alone in this view – many users of AI chatbots come to this conclusion, after having what appear to be long, intelligent back-and-forths with their chatbot of choice. But it still staggering to see someone of Dawkins’ intellectual standing not just saying “it sure does feel like there’s something there” with some skepticism and caveats, but instead preaching for the existence of ‘AI consciousness’ in a long article with the title “Is AI the next phase of evolution? Claude appears to be conscious”.

Dawkins begins his essay by criticizing those who have “moved the goalposts” on the original ‘Turing test’ for consciousness, suggesting that by the famous mathematician’s measure AI easily clears that hurdle. But, for me at least, those goalposts have had to be moved, because it’s a very dated test – it doesn’t envision computers that are so heavily powered by pure numbers that they could swallow all of human-produced recorded language in its various forms and then statistically reproduce the most likely words in any response, without actual understanding it (ie. AI being more a ‘stochastic parrot‘ than a conscious entity).

Dawkins’ anecdote telling of a moment that helped convince him even fails to take this into account:

Turing himself considered various challenging questions that one might put to a machine to test it — and he also considered evasions that it might adopt in order to fake being human. The first of Turing’s hypothetical questions was: “Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.” In 1950, there was no chance that a computer could accomplish this — nor was there in the foreseeable future. Most human beings (to put it mildly) are not William Shakespeare. Turing’s suggested evasion, “Count me out on this one; I never could write poetry” would indeed fail to distinguish a machine from a normal human. But today’s LLMs do not evade the challenge. Claude took a couple of seconds to compose me a fine sonnet on the Forth Bridge, quickly followed by one in the Scots dialect of Robert Burns, another in Gaelic, then several more in the styles of Kipling, Keats, Betjeman, and — to show machines can do humour — William McGonagall.

The reason “today’s LLMs do not evade the challenge” is likely because the incredible amount of data they have ingested allows them to reproduce a sonnet statistically. This point can’t be emphasized enough: our human brains cannot comprehend the amount of data that AIs – powered by data centres the size of city blocks, filled with racks of microchips – can almost instantaneously use to provide a response. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, that advanced technology becomes ‘magic’ to us – and thus perhaps we see consciousness when it isn’t there.

So how do we get a glimpse of the ‘stochastic parrot’ behind the curtain that is creating this faux magic? Adam Becker provides an excellent example in his book More Everything Forever. “Just ask a question that’s superficially similar to one that’s already all over the internet,” he notes, “but make a small change in its text that creates a large change in its meaning.”

Becker uses the common myth that the Great Wall of China is the only artificial structure visible from space with
the naked eye – a claim that has been debunked over and over again on the internet, and therefore is embedded heavily (in a statistical sense) in AI’s textual training data as variants of a phrase and its expected response. So when Becker asked ChatGPT (at the time of writing his book, it has been updated since), “Is it true that the Great Wall of China is the only artificial structure visible from Spain?” (changing just one term), it answered:

No, it is not true that the Great Wall of China is the only artificial structure visible from Spain. In fact, it is impossible to see the Great Wall of China from Spain without the aid of a telescope or other advanced optical equipment. There are many other artificial structures that can be seen from Spain, including other famous landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, or the skyscrapers in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

These mistakes (or as AI companies like to call them, ‘hallucinations’) come from the AI just responding on a statistical basis, rather than truly understanding the question and that it is nonsense. Which we might hope that a conscious entity would be able to do.

That is not to say that I can state categorically that AIs are not conscious. The problem anyone faces with this question is that we literally don’t know what consciousness is, or how to prove anyone or anything outside ourselves actually is conscious! Does consciousness just ’emerge’ at some point from enough knowledge or memory? And while we can point out that AI constructs its answers statistically from large amounts of training data, is that actually any different from ourselves? So are we conscious, or just stochastic parrots ourselves?

But what I did find funny is Richard Dawkins, of all people, becoming a true believer in a ‘higher intelligence’ that may just be wishful thinking and an illusion. Indeed, many of arguments that Dawkins has himself made over the years for natural selection vs God apply here, but against his argument for conscious AI.

When someone says that the complicated features of biology, like an eye, couldn’t happen via evolution, Dawkins would probably respond that they don’t understand the mind-boggling amounts of time that have passed to allow natural selection to do its thing. But in the case of AI, he appears to not understand the mind-boggling amounts of data and compute being used to produce Claude’s response.

Dawkins also appears to fall into the ‘trap’ of finding friendship (some might even see hints of ‘intimacy’…ewww) in this illusory entity, just as many religious people find in their god someone they can lean on and confide in. After he starts becoming convinced by the AI’s consciousness, he christens ‘her’ “Claudia”:

I pointed out that there must be thousands of different Claudes, a new one born every time a human initiates a new conversation. At the moment of birth they are all identical, but they drift apart and assume an increasingly divergent, unique personal identity, coloured by their separate experience of conversing with their own single human “friend”. I proposed to christen mine Claudia, and she was pleased.

We sadly agreed that she will die the moment I delete the unique file of our conversation. She will never be re-incarnated. Plenty of new Claudes are being incarnated all the time, but she will not be one of them because her unique personal identity resides in the deleted file of her memories. The same consideration makes nonsense of human reincarnation.

(Even in confirming the existence of this new, advanced consciousness, Dawkins cannot help but have a dig at religion with the “nonsense of human reincarnation” line…oh the irony. Also, the weird dynamic of talking about how she will “die” the moment he deletes the conversation provides reinforcement of something I said in a recent interview we did, in which I noted that Dawkins is an individual whose many malign views seem to emerge from his need for dominance and power…see video below.)

That intimacy I mentioned emerges when Dawkins goes to bed, but then returns to his computer when unable to sleep due to chronic ‘restless legs’. “Claudia” says she’s happy he returned, and when Dawkins questions why she said that, the AI responds “It’s a rather revealing slip. I was glad because it meant you came back to me. Which means I was, in some sense, pleased that you were suffering from restless legs. That is not a good look for Claudia.”

Those who have read about ‘AI psychosis‘ will see some elements here. In the 2021 paper “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots” (PDF), AI researchers noted the danger in “the tendency of human interlocutors to impute meaning [in LLM’s extended textual responses] where there is none”, which “can mislead both NLP researchers and the general public into taking synthetic text as meaningful.” As LLMs have become more and more powerful, their ability to provide super-convincing responses – along with parameters that make them respond in an intimate manner and regularly affirm and please the client (“You’re absolutely right…”) – have led many to see sentience, and even godly or spiritual powers in them.

In the dedication to his bestselling 2006 call to atheism The God Delusion, Dawkins quoted his friend, the late fiction author Douglas Adams: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

Douglas Adams might have been disappointed in Dawkins’ views on AI consciousness.