We have grown used to the old rambling responses of Eliza, that wonder-tool of a bygone era. We are too easy impressed by semantics and subtlety of language.

The one thing Dawkins might not be aware of, in his turn-based exchange is how many actual watts are being expended to polish Claude's presentation. There are whole datacenters worth of iron being hidden behind this exchange. Is this level of 'intelligence' sustainable in the long run when pitted against the 12-24 watt human brain?

It's a hell of a better thing to do than cryptocurrency tho. Proof of work for max greed was not sustainable either.

Googling I got the a power use estimate as Standard Query (Sonnet): ~0.84 Wh

Assuming Dawkins made 100 queries over the the weekend we have AI power use 84 Wh, Dawkins brain at say 20W x 48 hrs = 960 Wh.

Of course when you include the rest of the cost of powering a Dawkins including food and heating his house the human energy use goes higher.

Watts and sustainability were never part of the Turing test, of course. It was conceived as more of a philosophical argument than a practical test.

For instance, consider Searle's Chinese Room counter argument [1]: Millions of humans emulating a computer program isn't the most efficient use of resources either, off course.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room