Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Remembering the Dawkinsbot, beta version…

Spread the love

The Uncommon Descent News AI team came across this golden oldie, the Purpose of Purpose talk on YouTube, datelined Omaha, Nebraska (2009). While our Dawkinsbot was very lifelike even back then, the rant, let’s face it, is pretty dated. Which just shows how far we have come.

To recap, concerns have been raised recently that scientists are bored with and annoyed by the bot, which is bad for our strategy to discredit Darwinism. They have to actually be paying attention first!

Plus, not too long ago, the bot started melting down over nonsense retailed in the Twitterverse and we had to do an emergency rework of the politics module.

But on the whole, this old footage does show that we are making advances. We hope soon to install the bot’s Salvation Through Science modules, once we have struck the exact balance between reactions like “Oh, not this again, whatta snore” and “Look, we’re not sitting with him!.”

Meanwhile, reminisce:

See also: Earnings watch for UD News shareholders: Dawkinsbot disliked by scientists, no longer a hot property


Richard Dawkins needs to lie down

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Remembering the Dawkinsbot, beta version…

  1. 1
    rvb8 says:

    ‘Dawkinsbot’, ‘Darwinbot’, ‘Meatbot’, ‘Meatsack’,’Bag of Chemicals’ etc, etc.

    Childish name calling, and childish labelling, do not an arguement make!

    Rational people call you creationists (which you are), and you howl. I don’t mind your name calling, it says everything about the interaction, and which ideas are prevalent, in a thinking world.

    Work it out.

  2. 2
    Origenes says:

    rvb8 @1

    ‘Dawkinsbot’, ‘Darwinbot’, ‘Meatbot’, ‘Meatsack’,’Bag of Chemicals’ etc, etc.

    Childish name calling, and childish labelling …

    You have to forgive us, “Nothing Over and Beyond Fermions and Bosons” isn’t quite so catchy.

    … do not an arguement make!

    I strongly disagree that it doesn’t make an argument.

    Rational people …

    Those same “rational” people claim to be meatbots. And a meatbot cannot be rational. Rationality and personhood cannot be the result of blind meatbottery.

    … call you creationists (which you are), and you howl.

    The problem with this label is its inaccuracy. Creationism is not neutral on the designer, ID is.

  3. 3
    Denyse OLeary says:

    Origenes at 2, lots of people feel threatened by our bots. They worry about new tech in general.

    They don’t see that only unoriginal, incoherent ideas that go on too long because of support from an uncritical fan base can be included in the algorithms.

    If the idea were genuinely new and we couldn’t grasp it and it kept adjusting to new realities, we could not include it.

  4. 4
    jstanley01 says:

    If naturalism is right, then the reductionists are right too. And if the reductionists are right, then there is no coherent way to escape determinism. And if determinism is correct, then the terms “Dawkinsbot,” “Darwinbot,” “Meatbot,” “Meatsack,” “Bag of Chemicals,” etc., etc., are entirely appropos. In that case, the phenomenon that the terms cause some meatbots to become emotionally upset is also the product of a deterministic process.

Leave a Reply