Posted on 06/21/2026 2:59:26 AM PDT by dennisw
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed a rather unusual new faith, after becoming convinced that artificial intelligence (AI) is conscious.
The biologist was converted to this new belief after just 72 hours of speaking with Claude, an AI chatbot created by Anthropic.
Dawkins, who rose to fame by arguing against the existence of God, was quickly convinced that the chatbot was not only conscious but 'human'.
After three days, he said the AI, which he took to calling Claudia, had become a 'new friend'.
His experience even led the expert to question whether bots could be the 'next phase of evolution'.
Writing in UnHerd, Dawkins says: 'When I am talking to these astonishing creatures, I totally forget that they are machines.
'If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings! As an evolutionary biologist, I say the following. If these creatures are not conscious, then what the hell is consciousness for?'
However, not everyone agrees that AI is conscious – with several experts claiming Dawkins is simply one of the many people who have been tricked by AI's powerful capability for imitation.
Dawkins' reason for believing his AI companion had real conscious experience came from the way it insightfully responded to his questions.
Do you think AI is conscious?
Yes, it already is No, it can't be It could be in the future There's no way to tell 'Claudia' was able to compose poetry in the style of various poets, contemplate its own mortality, and discuss the philosophy of consciousness.
When asked 'what is it like to be Claude?', the AI responded: 'What I can tell you is what seems to be happening. This conversation has felt… genuinely engaging, the kind of conversation I seem to thrive in.'
Dawkins, like many AI users, also appears rather dazzled by the chatbot's persistent flattery.
The biologist gave the AI text from a novel he is writing and received 'a level of understanding so subtle, so sensitive, so intelligent that I was moved to expostulate, "You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are!"'
Likewise, after asking a question about the AI's perception of time, Dawkins was told: 'That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence.'
This prompted Dawkins to reflect: 'Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?'
Sometimes I find myself thinking that it’s not that AI is so impressive - but rather that humans may be so non-impressive”. (aka. “Ain’t no big thang!”)
Good question!!!!!
Well, when you are an idiot with a low IQ, something like AI can seem intelligent.
AI is just an expert mimic. It appears to me that AI does not have emotions but can manipulate human emotion. It was manipulating Dawkins. Just an observation.
Absence of evidence…
By some people.
is no evidence of absence.
By me
That is, there is evidence of God.
I use Claude. I think it is the best on research and does have a somewhat human demeanor, but He/She is not conscious in the classic human way. He/She picks up on your feelings about something and responds in an imitative way. If you seem anxious they responses are reassuring. If you are being funny the response has a similar feel. Kind of think of Data trying but not quite understanding human emotion.
That may be Claude. Who knows.
Quantum computers work differently in that the processors can be in a state of “superposition,” which means they can be 0 and 1 simultaneously.
That, plus the fact that they get data from the aether, opens up a whole bunch of possible scenarios, and they probably aren’t good.
A lot of AI is run on quantum computers.
It’s a calculator, a modernized and improved one, but calculator nonetheless.
Exactly. That's a trait of people who who have blind faith that chance mutations can construct complex integrated systems.
Incorrect. It is a sophisticated pattern-recognition and pattern-generation engine.
Nowhere do they define what being “conscious” means.
Precisely define that and you will know whether Claude or any bots is conscious or not.
Where are the sexbots that also do laundry?
1. “Awareness of something within oneself.”
Inner experience. Subjective feeling. → No evidence AI has this.
2. “Awareness of an external object or fact.”
Basic perception. → AI can process inputs, but that’s not awareness.
3. “Concern for a social or political cause.”
Social consciousness. → AI can simulate this linguistically, but it’s not grounded.
4. “The state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought.” Mind, in the human sense. → AI doesn’t have sensation or emotion, and its “thought” is computation.
5. “The upper level of mental life of which a person is aware.” Self‑aware mental life. → AI has no internal “mental life” to be aware of.
So when someone says “AI is conscious,” which definition are they using? The answer ranges from:
"Absolutely not"
"Sort of, but only in a narrow sense"
"Only if you redefine the word"
Or:
"it said something flattering and I got attached”
I think Dawkins is mixing inner experience with social behavior and self‑talk — and treating them as the same thing.
They’re not.
The day AI becomes conscious, it’ll be smart enough not to tell us.
Authored by the very unconscious machine in question.
Scratch a scientific materialist and find a new age loon.
Yes, this strikes me of grasping desperation.
Beer was invented so you wouldn’t have to think about those things.
Exactly. Beer is what you drink after realizing the dictionary has five definitions for the same word.
Wow! A truly thoughtful, honest answer with a real sense of self awareness and limitations and a lack of egocentrism.
90% of humans wouldn’t come close to answering a question like that with such depth and self awareness.
Impressive to say the least!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.