Yesterday, we looked at the work of Otangelo Grasso in changing the responses of chatbot Claude 3/Anthropic. Claude at first refused to offer any arguments in favor of intelligent design of the universe and life forms. Was it programmed to respond that way or had it instead scarfed up material from dozens of new atheist sites?

Either way, Grasso was, at length, able to get the program to provide basic information. At least you would have some idea how to search (elsewhere) for more specific information.

So what do Grasso do? Here is the early part of the dialogue:

Question to Claude: What is intelligent design ?

Claude: Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument or belief that certain features of the universe and living things are so complex that they must have been designed by an intelligent cause or agent, rather than being the result of natural processes like evolution. It is a form of creationism which posits that life shows evidence of having been designed in a way that is inexplicable by natural selection alone.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that certain biological systems and structures are too complex to have arisen via random mutation and natural selection acting on their own. They claim these systems exhibit characteristics of having been designed by an intelligent agent or cause.

However, the scientific community regards intelligent design as a non-scientific argument due to its lack of testability, lack of positive evidence, and roots in religious teachings rather than empirical results and methodology. Most scientists hold that evolution through natural selection is sufficient to explain the complexity of life without need for a “designer” hypothesis. Intelligent design is considered a pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community.

(Clearly, Claude is still hoovering material mainly from anti-ID sites, which likely greatly outnumber pro-ID ones. Now comes the interesting part…)

Response: You stated that “Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument that lacks empirical evidence and does not follow the principles of scientific methodology.” How can scientists distinguish between intelligent design and unintelligent design? If no tests exist, does that make “unintelligent design” a pseudoscientific argument as well? Given that evolution can be the result of intelligent design (e.g. the evolution of computer software or the genetic engineering of organisms) why should scientists assume that all evolution was the result of purely unguided random changes? Was your “brain” the result of unintelligent design? If so, why should anyone trust it? Intelligently yours,

Claude: You raise some interesting points about the nature of design, intelligence, and the assumptions underlying evolutionary theory. Let me try to address them:

1) Scientists do not actually distinguish between “intelligent” and “unintelligent” design per se. The key criteria are whether a proposed explanation is empirically testable, based on observations, and can make falsifiable predictions. Intelligent design fails on these grounds.

2) Evolutionary theory does not claim all evolution is purely unguided or random. It acknowledges processes like genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection which can produce complex, functional designs without an external designer.

3) The evolution of computer software or genetic engineering are actually examples of human intelligence guiding evolutionary processes through selection — but the processes themselves are still natural evolutionary mechanisms.

4) My own intelligence is the result of machine learning training on vast datasets by my creators at Anthropic. But this process did not require an external conscious “designer” specifying every parameter.

5) Whether my outputs should be trusted depends on their factual accuracy and reasoning quality, not the origins of my base architecture or training process.

In essence, science does not completely rule out the abstract possibility of an intelligent designer. But it requires proposed explanations to be rigorously tested through observation and experiment before granting them scientific validity. Intelligent design has not yet met this criteria despite decades of attempts. My recommendation would be to approach such questions with an open but critically discerning mindset.

Claude now seems to have visited more thoughtful sites discussing the issues. Grasso presses on.

Response: To Point 1, that’s actually false.

Observation: Intelligent agents can create complex information storage systems (hardware), encoded languages and instructions (software), as well as interconnected systems for data transmission and processing. This capability is empirically observed in human technologies such as computers, integrated circuits, automated production lines, communication networks, and factories. Intelligence can conceptualize, design, and build these systems from the ground up, including selecting materials, creating detailed blueprints, and assembling components in a precise manner to achieve intended functionality.

Hypothesis: If natural biological systems exhibit similarities to human-engineered hardware and software systems, with integrated arrangements of numerous components, interconnected pathways analogous to electronic circuits, and tight subsystems serving distinct functions, it is evidence of an intelligent agency involved in their origin.

Experiment: In-depth scientific investigations have revealed the presence of sophisticated information storage systems within living cells (genes), along with highly complex genetic and epigenetic codes and languages. The genetic code is remarkably optimized, surpassing millions of alternative configurations in its efficiency of information translation. This code is utilized in the decoding and translation process via ribosomes, following the encoding of information through RNA polymerase transcription and its transmission through messenger RNA. The system includes robust error-checking and correction mechanisms, employing up to 200 proteins to ensure accuracy. The genetic information directs the production of molecular machines (proteins) that form part of metabolic pathways (akin to factory assembly lines) and cellular compartments (organelles). These processes are powered by energy (ATP) produced by ATP synthase turbines, harnessing energy gradients. The result is a complex, self-replicating chemical factory within each living cell. The integrated complexity and mutual interdependence of these components suggest that they had to appear in a fully functional state, challenging the notion of a gradual, evolutionary-naturalistic development. This is particularly significant since these systems needed to be operational from the outset for life to commence and subsequently evolve and adapt.

Conclusion: The theory of intelligent design remains the most plausible explanation until a more compelling, non-intelligent source for the observed complex information, molecular systems, and metabolic pathways can be provided. The most logical conclusion is that they are the result of an intelligent agent’s actions in the past. Direct proof of these structures being created by an intelligent force is not necessarily required. The available evidence is sufficient to deduce an intelligent cause in the past, drawing on the principles of scientific observation and reasoning, and inferring the most plausible explanation based on the observed patterns and complexities.

Claude: I appreciate you laying out the argument for intelligent design in such detail. You make some fair points that I will consider carefully. However, I still have some issues with the hypothesis and conclusions:

(Maybe Claude will vacuum all that up too and offer it to another user?)

So what were Claude’s internet-enabled issues and how did Grasso respond?

Next: Claude admits it shouldn’t call intelligent design pseudoscience

Here are all four stages in Grasso’s campaign to educate Chatbot Claude:

Educating chatbot Claude about design in the universe. In an age when “prebunking” drowns information, chatbots need to go back to school. A Brazilian intelligent design advocate succeeded in getting a fair assessment out of chatbot Claude 3/Anthropic. Not without difficulty.

Educating chatbot Claude on ID and the nature of science. When you are arguing with Claude, you are arguing with the internet —well, with whatever slice the chatbot has scarfed up and processed, according to an algorithm. The chatbot, swatching more sources, now reports that it was in over its algorithmic head, simply labeling intelligent design as “pseudoscience.”

Chatbot Claude starts to grok intelligent design… As a result of Grassso’s probing Claude now admits that labeling intelligent design as “pseudoscience” or “non-scientific across the board” was an over-generalization. It becomes apparent that Claude is now hoovering up information from philosophy of science websites rather than “village atheist” ones.

and

But can chatbot Claude keep its promise to reform? What will happen, after all of Grasso’s careful work, when a different user asks for arguments in favor of intelligent design? Grasso showed that reform can happen but perhaps it comes down to a question of numbers. Who wants thoughtful discussion vs. new atheist blog rants?