So Dawkins thinks Claude is conscious. I remember a lot of the atheist/skeptic movement was all about not claiming expertise outside your actual area of specialty, and to discount claims of people acting outside their expertise. Dawkins is a geneticist, not a research psychologist or neurologist or anything of the sort. Granted, genetics certainly play a role in consciousness of biological organisms, but it's psychology and neurology which would be the relevant fields to identify what consciousness even is and to recognize it in newer types of minds. He's well outside his wheelhouse on this claim. Granted, sometimes a lay person can figure things out in an expert field that the experts miss, but the amount of work they have to do to achieve and prove it is significant and I'm not seeing that here. Can we even count the fallacies he's relying on here that he'd rage at a religious person for using?