Skeptic Richard Dawkins has been in the news lately for asserting that AI chatbots are conscious, based on his own experiences interacting with Anthropic's Claude AI. That there's any question about this issue at all shows that the people making those assertions have no idea how chatbots work. This is not limited to Dawkins, who is a biologist with no background in computer science. Many people have developed the delusion that their chatbot is like a real person, to the point that "AI psychosis" is not considered a real thing.
Chatbots have been fooling humans since ELIZA, one of the earliest attempts to create a functional chatbot in the 1960's. ELIZA was designed to mimic Rogerian psychotherapy, a form of therapy that mostly involves listening to patients and rephrasing what they say back to them. So, for example, a person would type "I feel like my mother does not respect me" and Eliza would respond with "Why do you think your mother does not respect you?" The algorithm is hardcoded and incredibly simple, but at the same time some users found it convincing.
People sometimes bring up the Turing Test as a test for machine consciousness, which is wrong. Turing's idea was just that if a computer can fool enough people into thinking it's human, it might as well be interacted with as such. The test is all about behavior and says nothing about consciousness or the subjective interior "life" of such a program. It should be clear that we cannot conclude that a machine is conscious based solely on the gullibility of the users who interact with it, and that was never Turing's intention.
There was mutual flattery as Dawkins showed the AI his unpublished novel and its response was, he said, “so subtle, so sensitive, so intelligent that I was moved to expostulate: ‘You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are’.”
When he asked Claudia whether it experienced a sense of before and after, it praised him for “possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked me about the nature of my existence”.
By the end of the exchange, the academic, popularly renowned for arguing with steely scepticism that God is not real, was “left with the overwhelming feeling that they are human”. “These intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism,” he said.
Dawkins isn’t the first, but might be the most eminent person yet, to be seduced into believing an AI is somehow alive. Sceptics rushed to pick apart the 85-year-old’s conclusions, drawn from experiments with Anthropic’s Claude AI models and OpenAI’s ChatGPT and published on the UnHerd website.
As a professional software developer, let me see if I can explain AI in a way that makes a little more sense than the complex discourses on the mathematics of machine learning that get thrown around by tech companies.





