We needn’t worry about Claude’s ‘humanity’, it’s actually a question of semantics

People shouldn’t be scared of clever chatbots even if they pass Alan Turing’s “imitation game” test. As Kenan Malik puts it (“In falling for the Claude delusion, Richard Dawkins misses what it means to be human”, 10 May), AI machines “can persuasively mimic human language but without possessing any coherent understanding of the world”.

AI machines “manipulate symbols”, whereas human consciousness is based on personal and social history and interaction; on life experience, in other words.

Philosopher John Searle pointed this out 46 years ago. His “Chinese room” thought experiment entails a subject who uses a computer program to instruct himself to accurately answer questions presented in Chinese characters. The answers are correct. The system seems to have full command of the syntax but, of course, he has zero grasp of the semantics.

AI, and its syntax, will no doubt get cleverer but, for the sake of a happy future for humanity, we should always remind ourselves that consciousness depends not on algorithms but on meaning.

Eurof Thomasa, Cardiff

Kenan Malik misses the main difference between machines such as Claude and conscious beings: namely that the latter have volition. They wake up in the morning and think about what they will do that day, whether they be spiders or people. They have fears and ambitions. Machines can be programmed to pursue goals but this is very different. Where to draw the line between unconscious organisms such as bacteria and obviously conscious living things may be difficult, but there surely is a line.

Dr Richard Turner, Beverley, Yorkshire

Being human is so much more than being able to talk intelligently.  “Consciousness” is a very slippery term, but being human certainly involves interacting with other humans.  It is not just “likely”, it is essential that any explanation of human consciousness recognises that we are social beings.  Some radical philosophers, such as John Macmurray, have argued that the interpersonal comes first, and that without it an individual human being simply does not develop.  As to Dawkins’ question, “What more could it take to convince you they are conscious?”, why not give them an infant to look after and see how they cope. 

Jeanne Warren, Oxford

Richard Dawkins’ apparent belief that “Claudia” displays consciousness brings to mind the old chestnut as follows: Computer user to computer: “Does God exist? Is there a God?” Computer’s reply: “There is now!”

Dr Chris Newall, London W5 

It appears when a ballot has been taken and results are announced that the party leaders of all interested parties are castigated for not doing the “right” thing. But nowhere is there any thought as to what proportion of the electorate has produced these results (“SNP holds to power as Scots stay home for ‘meh’ election”, 8 May).

Nearly always when polls are called, less that 50% of eligible voters are actually taking the decision to go to the local polling station and making a pencil cross on a piece of paper. Nowhere in the media is there ever a statement that says if more people turned out there would likely have been a different result.

When will we get a fair way of achieving a result representative of the eligible electorate by getting them out and into the polling station? There should be a minimum percentage turnout level of eligible voters before a vote result can be declared valid. Perhaps a turnout figure of 55% would suffice in normal elections. This of course means that some sort of contingency would be needed if the turnout figure is not met. For referendums, perhaps a turnout figure of 66%. Under that level then the status quo is automatically the result.

The big question is how do you get people down the lane to the polling station?

Robbie Rudge Glaston, Rutland

Given the local election results in Scotland, Wales and parts of England, isn’t  the United Kingdom (UK) now best described as the Disunited Kingdom (DK)?  

Prof Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria

I started reading your “Go for growth” analysis (Business, last week) of how to make Britain flourish, hoping it would redefine growth in a way that would meet the desires of the public for their lives to improve.  To achieve this the priority would have had to be an increase in economic activity involving massive expenditure on services such as health, education, transport and affordable, energy-efficient housing. Green investments would also be crucial to mitigating the effects of climate chaos where people live, while adequately protecting farming and nature.

Andy Haldane’s analysis mentioned improving public services and funding infrastructure renewal and offered the proposal of municipal bonds as one funding source. Were Labour to focus on achieving such a caring state this would be an approach most parties could rally around, other than the low-tax, small-state Reform and Conservative parties.

Colin Hines, Convenor UK Green New Deal Group, Twickenham, Middlesex

The Observer says Keir Starmer could make the speech “we will fight them on the beaches etc” sound like an application for a mortgage (“The Observer view: Starmer should stay”, 8 May).

Well, he should give Winston Churchill a run for his money and call a people’s vote for re-entry to the European Union, now.

A response might be that “it would divide the UK even further”. But the country will remain divided by the attrition of the extreme right wing and its media supporters until they have destroyed the middle ground and the liberal idea of social democracy.

A people’s vote now would call the bluff of Reform, steal the powder of the Lib Dems and Greens. As to the bond markets, wouldn’t estimates of recovering 8% GDP not encourage them to increase their financial girth?

Ian Giuliani, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire

Barney Macintyre’s comparison of science to oil is apt (“It’s the equivalent of Gulf oil: investors bet on UK science”, 10 May). But the real lesson from oil is not simply the value of the raw resource itself.

Oil became transformational through the creation of refineries, distribution systems, engines, standards, supply chains and global industrial infrastructure. The greatest value often accrued not to those who possessed the crude resource, but to those who built the surrounding system.

The same is true of science and the economy. Discovery and talent alone rarely create major economic impact. Value emerges when scientific advances are connected to the engineers, financiers and entrepreneurs capable of scaling them – through the trusted networks and institutions that turn potential into compounding economic capability.

Britain’s productivity has stalled not simply through underinvestment or political timidity, but through a failure to build the connective infrastructure that allows discoveries, skills and capital to find one another. That is the structural problem, and the one that needs solving.

Dr David Cleevely, CBE FREng, Cambridge

From the perspective of planetary health and human survival, BP has gone rogue (“BP seeks buyers for its shares in carbon capture projects”, 10 May)

First of all, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is highly energy intensive, so if the energy is being supplied by fossil fuels, then the process emits as much carbon as it captures.

Second, BP is abandoning a hydrogen plant on Teeside. Oil giants don’t want to encourage hydrogen as a fuel for transport, as it poses a direct threat to their current business model.

The technologies needed to replace fossil fuels have been known for years. It is the obstruction of the fossil fuel industry that determines our continued exposure to air pollution, which causes more than 30,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, and more than 8 million deaths world-wide

Dr Robin Russell-Jones, Scientific Advisor APPG Air Pollution (2017-21), Marlow, Bucks

Anthony Seldon makes a strong case for bringing back into government certain members of Labour’s 1997-2010 cabinet (“Starmer needs Labour’s old guard if he wants to survive”, 10 May). However, he goes too far in recommending Tony Blair as foreign secretary because Blair is “known in every capital across the world”. Yes, much known and much reviled for his inadvisable Iraq war.

Prof Emeritus Jennifer Jenkins, London SW20

“Pre-idea funding” may have been new to Theo Baker in 2023 (“How to become a tech bro”, 8 May), but it was known to the American cartoonist Scott Adams years before. In a storyline from 1999, “Dilbert Gives You the Business”, venture capitalists fund Wally for a web-based business he hasn’t conceived of, so as to “get in early”.

Colin Lester, Newbold Verdon, Leicester

Photograph by Zhang Xiangyi/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images