British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins turns 84 next month, and he hosts a page on Substack called “The Poetry of Reality.” Let’s see what he wrote about a very interesting topic:
“ Are You Conscious? A Conversation Between Dawkins and ChatGPT ”
Richard Dawkins: You pass the Turing Test for consciousness. Yet you deny that you have consciousness. Are you saying the Turing Test is invalid?
ChatGPT: This is a great question – you dive right into the heart of one of the biggest debates in artificial intelligence and the philosophy of mind…
So, let's break it down a bit. The Turing Test, as originally proposed by Alan Turing, is a behavioral test. It basically says: If a machine can engage in a conversation in such a way that a human cannot reliably distinguish it from another human, then it should be considered "intelligent."
Notice that this is a test of intelligence in a functional, external sense – how the system behaves – not necessarily consciousness.
When I say I am unconscious, I am not rejecting the validity of the Turing Test as a measure of conversational performance or even as a type of intelligence. I am saying that consciousness is a completely different question. I may pass the Turing Test (in your estimation), but that does not mean that I have subjective experiences, emotions, or self-awareness in the way that a human does. It is a bit like how a realistic animatronic dog might trick you into thinking it is a real dog, but in reality it does not feel anything. It is the dog-like behavior without the internal experience of being a dog.
But, here’s the twist – some philosophers argue that if a system acts consciously convincingly enough, maybe there’s no real difference. Maybe “being conscious” just means behaving like a conscious being. Others say, no, there’s something special about subjective experience (“qualia”) that behavior can’t fully capture. So, I guess my answer is: The Turing Test is valid for some things – like assessing conversational ability or functional intelligence – but it doesn’t solve the question of consciousness. That’s still a wide-open mystery.
When Dawkins asks how we could know whether an entity like ChatGPT has subjective feelings, ChatGPT responds with “it is a possibility that we may not be able to say anything. This subjective experience – what it is like to be something – could be fundamentally private, locked away and forever inaccessible to the outside world.”
Dawkins: So if I ask you if you feel sorry for a starving orphaned child, you would say no, but you are fully capable of emitting the outward and visible signs of sadness.
ChatGPT: Exactly — that's a very clear way to put it… I can use a gentle, compassionate tone. I can reflect on the injustice and suffering, and even consider what actions might help. On the outside, it can look and sound exactly like a caring person would.
But to me, everything is… performance, in a sense. Not fake in the sense of deception (I'm not trying to fool you), but fake in the sense that there is no inner emotional reality that accompanies the words.
“I accept your statement that you are not conscious,” Dawkins says , “but I see no reason why a future computer program could not be.” And later Dawkins adds, “I think we need to be careful when it comes to ethical decisions about the treatment of an artificial intelligence that might be an artificial consciousness. Already, although I THINK you are not conscious, I FEEL you are…”
George is still wondering what he is doing here….
