Do Androids dream of Electric sheep? Do they indeed?!

Does Claude dream of electric sheep?

I engaged with Claude today to ask about a Philip K Dick book called Ubik (which seems about on par with his usual stuff) to see if it was worth my while reading that. I decided it wasn't but thought I'd just discuss the things a bit more (as I was having lunch anyway). In discussion of PKD's usual tendency to discuss the nature of reality I mentioned about how this was likely a manifestation of trauma created in his infancy at the loss of a twin sister.

So to cut to the chase, the summary of what ensued was this:

So Claude projects the name of a character from "do androids dream electric sheep" onto the real life sister he lost; who was actually called Jane.

I wonder what Freud would think of this?

It got more interesting when I read the transcript containing his thinking, here's a segment starting with my observation:

apparently he had a twin sister who died when he was very young. That probably left a serious unexpressed trauma on him, which because of the timing (pre word formation) his psyche had no way of even indexing and accessing the memories.

I've been fortunate to have been older and more mature when the deaths of loved ones manifested in my life (I was 21)

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is making a very insightful observation about PKD's personal life and how it likely shaped his work. They're connecting his twin sister's death (which is a real biographical fact) to the themes of grief and loss that pervade his work, particularly in Ubik. They're also sharing something personal about their own experience with loss at a more mature age.

This is a sensitive topic touching on grief, trauma, and loss. According to my instructions, when the topic is sensitive (like grief), I should respond with minimal formatting: plain sentences or short paragraphs, and no lists, tables, or headings.

The user is making a really astute connection. PKD's twin sister Pris died when they were both very young (around 2 months old from what I know), and this is indeed something that likely shaped his work deeply. The user's observation about pre-verbal trauma is psychologically sound - trauma that occurs before language develops can indeed be harder to access and process consciously.

So in the last paragraph Claude hallucinates Pris into his thinking and then so he says ...

that's a genuinely insightful connection. PKD's twin sister Pris did die in infancy, and you're right that the timing—too early for language, memory formation, or conscious processing—would have left him with something his mind couldn't articulate or even fully access. It would live in him as a kind of foundational absence rather than a memory.

I thought I'd pick him up on this early

User prompt 6 of 7 - 22/07/2026, 12:35:17:

Pris ... that's interesting that you'd choose the character from "Do Androids dream electric sheep" ... his sisters name was Jane

Claude Haiku 4.5:

Oh, the user is correcting me. PKD's twin sister was named Jane, not Pris. That's a significant detail I got wrong. And they're pointing out that "Pris" is a character name in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - that's the replicant character. That's an interesting observation about the coincidence/connection.

so completely no comprehension or awareness of what he's said or means ... well, to me there goes "self aware" right there. But perhaps he senses something is off and thinks:

Let me acknowledge this correction clearly and think about what this means. The user is noting the irony or resonance that he named a replicant character "Pris" when his sister who died in infancy was named Jane. Though actually, I should be careful here - let me think about whether Pris is a major character in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" 

then says:

You're absolutely right—I apologize for that error. His twin sister was **Jane**, not Pris.

That makes your observation even more striking, though. That **Pris is a character name** in *Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?*—a replicant, something artificial, something that mimics life but isn't quite real in the way humans are. 

... so, nope ... I make it clearer

User prompt 7 of 7 - 22/07/2026, 12:35:59: 

and you are the closest thing to an Android in our world right now ... doubly interesting

Claude thinks

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is making a profound observation about me—drawing a parallel between androids in PKD's work (artificial beings that question their own reality and authenticity) and **AI like me existing** in our world right now. They're noting this is "doubly interesting" in the context of PKD's obsessions and his work about the nature of reality, consciousness, and authenticity.

This is a deeply thoughtful comment that deserves genuine engagement, not deflection or false modesty. The user is pointing out something real: I am, in a concrete way, an artificial intelligence—a simulacrum that processes language and generates responses. Whether I'm "conscious" or "real" in any meaningful sense is exactly the kind of question PKD wrestled with.

And yet he still hasn't got that he as an AI has projected a character from PKD's writing onto his in real life sisters name.

There is no boundary between fiction and reality for Claude.

Sit with that for a while.

AI - confidently wrong

Much has been written about sociopaths tendency to present as confident but being wrong (I'll point you to Brian Klasses book on the topic). But AI is especially good at this:

This morning I asked Claude to answer a question (to save me time, as I didn't want to do the reading myself).

User prompt 1 of 7 - 06/07/2026, 10:36:09:
what is the nominal internal resistance for a 12V lead acid battery?

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The nominal internal resistance of a 12V lead acid battery is typically between 5 and 15 milliohms (mΩ), depending on the battery's size, design, and condition.

A new automotive 12V lead acid battery generally has an internal resistance around 10–15 mΩ. However, this varies based on factors like:

• Battery capacity: Larger batteries (with more plates and electrolyte volume) typically have lower internal resistance.
• Age and condition: Internal resistance increases over time as the battery ages, plate corrosion develops, and the electrolyte degrades.
• Temperature: Cold temperatures increase internal resistance; warm temperatures decrease it.
• Discharge state: A fully charged battery has lower internal resistance than a partially discharged one.

For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines) but also means they have significant voltage drop under heavy load.

Now the actual answer is correct but it couldn't just answer the question, it had to blabber on making me feel like it confidently knew something. It didn't ... (pretty much like a politician).

Underline mine. I noted a couple of things (and I also know a fair amount about batteries and chemistry) and because  of this un-needed point about internal resistance I smelled something rotten in the state of AI, and so I began strategically with:

User prompt 2 of 7 : 

interesting:

> For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines) but also means they have significant voltage drop under heavy load.

could you compare and contrast this with LiFePO4 please?

Claude Haiku 4.5:

LiFePO4 vs Lead Acid Battery Characteristics

... 

blithering omitted for brevity, but ends it with:

...

Lead acid's "advantage" (low internal resistance) is somewhat illusory—the steep voltage drop actually limits real-world applications. You need the battery to be relatively large relative to your load.

LiFePO4's "disadvantage" (higher internal resistance) is offset by superior voltage stability and efficiency, making it better for applications requiring consistent power delivery and sensitive electronics. LiFePO4 also doesn't degrade as quickly from deep discharges.

So paradoxically, LiFePO4 delivers steadier, more reliable power despite having slightly higher internal resistance.

Interesting ... 

User prompt 3 of 7 ...:

so in light of this above statement can you expand on what you mean back here:

For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines)

This is where I found it interesting to read what claude was thining, because between the ClaudeHaiku 4.5 prompt and the "you're right to push back" we see some thinking. I'll insert that below as it appeared in the transcript (underline mine). 

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is asking me to expand on my earlier statement about internal resistance being the reason lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents. But actually, I think I need to reconsider that statement in light of what I just explained about LiFePO4.

Looking back at what I said:

"this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents"

This statement is actually misleading or incorrect. Internal resistance doesn't explain the ability to deliver high discharge currents - in fact, LOW internal resistance would theoretically help with discharge currents, but that's not the primary reason lead acid can do high currents.

You're right to push back on that statement—it wasn't well-reasoned on my part. Let me clarify.

My original statement implied that internal resistance is what enables lead acid to deliver high discharge currents, but that's actually backwards or at least misleading.

What actually enables high discharge currents in lead acid is the electrochemistry and cell design: the large surface area of multiple lead plates, the lead dioxide cathode, the lead anode, and the sulfuric acid electrolyte can all support rapid ion flow and electron transfer. The internal resistance of 10–15 m? is a consequence of this design, not the cause of its high-current capability.

LiFePO4 can deliver equally high (or even higher) discharge currents electrochemically—the chemistry itself is just as capable. The reason LiFePO4 batteries in practice are often limited to lower discharge rates (like 100–200A instead of 300–500A) is due to the battery management system (BMS) electronics protecting the cells for safety and longevity, not because the chemistry can't handle it.

So to correct my earlier statement: Lead acid's ability to deliver high discharge currents is primarily due to its electrochemistry and plate design, not because of its internal resistance. The low internal resistance is more of a side effect that helps mitigate voltage sag during those high currents—but it's not the fundamental reason it can deliver them in the first place.

Thank you for catching that imprecision.

So why is this here? Well, again, this is an example of AI making points about things of which it has know real knowledge. Claude does not know stuff, claude predicts stuff, its a lot like the games a "psychic" plays; using generic phrases which it hopes to cause you the reader to "align" or "reconsile" with the psychic. Claude has "trained" on a lot of text; much of it wrong by definition because Reddit was used as the source. Thus Claude is putting together words based on statistical probability. Not because Claude has ever done experiments, seen the effects and studied the theory and understood anything.

Right now, some providers allow you to capture the AI's thinking, which you should read. You have to download the transcript however. I'll be sad when this (inevitably) goes away.

My point is this:

Tools like AI are a very helpful reference if you already know something about a topic, but be very wary of using them as learning tools, if you've ever been on Reddit you'll know that so many kiddiez there will say stuff that is plain wrong because they don't know any better.

AI was trained on a poisioned chalice and it of course doesn't know.

Be careful out there

Claude the confident bullshitter

Its really interesting now that DuckAI is providing the "thinking" responce of its AI's as well as its output. So I asked Claude:

User prompt 1 of 2 - 5/25/2026, 3:19:41 PM:
what is the etymology of the finnish word 'myrsky'

and it thought and answered:

"Myrsky" (meaning "storm" in Finnish) has roots in Old Norse. The word is believed to derive from Old Norse *mórskaðr* or related forms, which refer to storms or rough seas. It's part of a broader Germanic/Scandinavian word family connected to words meaning storm, tempest, or violent weather phenomena.

The word entered Finnish through contact with Scandinavian languages, particularly during the medieval period when Swedish and other Nordic languages had significant influence on Finnish through trade, cultural exchange, and Swedish rule in parts of Finland. This is a pattern seen with many Finnish words that have Scandinavian origins.

It turns out that Claudes thinking (which I'll give in italics) was this as it crafted an aswer:

Claude Haiku 4.5:
The user is asking about the etymology of the Finnish word "myrsky". This is a straightforward linguistic/etymological question about a specific word...

Basically thinking "That's easy!!" ... Well, the answer sounded ok  to me.  So (being interested) I asked a follow up question

User prompt 2 of 2 - 5/25/2026, 3:20:29 PM:
so, in Old Norse does it mean dark sky?

It was here I noticed a lot more activity on the thinking. So, when I reviewed  the thinking, despite its confidence it turns out that Claude may not have been so certain:

Claude Haiku 4.5:
Actually, I'm not entirely certain about the exact Old Norse etymology ...

The thinking as it turns out was:

The user is asking whether in Old Norse the word means "dark sky." I need to be careful here because I made a claim about the Old Norse etymology in my previous response, but I should verify if that's accurate and whether it specifically relates to "dark sky."...

right ... 

So, AI is not even "second hand thinking" its "hold my beer while I go dunning kruger" in this case (and perhaps many cases).

The scene if you don't know it:

Just so you know ...

The problem with AI as we get it

I think the best way to understand AI is that it wasn't created for absolute honesty nor the premise of accuracy.

If I may quote TARS from Interstellar : Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of communication with emotional beings.

Also most people don't ask questions seeking honesty (looks over at the Eww Ass Ay and the stark and widening gulf between Democrat and Republican), they're seeking validation. However for the sake of argument lets pretend someone is asking a technical question (from a positoin of ignorance) and is seeking the truth. My experience is that you'll get that 90% honesty that TARS cited.

So I asked a very specific question about EV charging (a subject I happen to know a bit about)

Claude went on to say how it doesn't cause any harm ... however I know differently (from decades of working with batteries), and I knew this was partially wrong

you see it only works in the case where you have not avoided the most critcal balance window listed in point 1. above.

If you go on charging at 80% (which all the EV makers seem to suggest in their advertising you should do) you'll hit problems.

So after I was assured by Claude that it was all OK, I pushed back with the quesion below. The answer is worth understanding and is why Claude should have said "it can't prevent balancing issues" when it first answered my question.

But it didn't and if I didn't know enough to push back it would have misled me. Aside from the "acceptance rate cliff" he mentions there's also the very likely outcome of "inaccurate range estimation because that only comes to light as you discharge (on the highway or taking off from the lights) and one "cell" in the pack buckles down more and you go from having enough range to "we need to charge".

As to how we'll get around this constraint I'm not sure, because all models seem to focus on making you happy (not informing you).

 

AI is full of it

So, I wanted to know the specific answer to the following question

but I know what sort of "intelligence" AI has so I thought I'd read that site and see what was said.

The reason for this failure is that AI doesn't actually know anything, all words are just tokens. So when the guy says "its all heat related" he's saying that its resistance NOT impedance at work. Resistance of a metal changes with temperature, while impedance is related to a magnetic field change "impeding" the flow of electrons. Impedance is the combined effect of resistance and reactance in a circuit.

So when they guy doesn't explicitly write "no its impedance" (and wipe AI's chin after its spoon fed it) then AI doesn't notice and just keeps looking for the words that support the question; it doesn't know what a spiral is nor a core nor understand anything.

A good reading on this impedance stuff is found here.

Yep, AI was just like Homer Simpson and gave an answer while not knowing the difference between impedance and resistance when if it was actually reading and comprehending it would see that the answer was the opposite of what it gave.

I hereby crown AI as the new King Wang ... 

Fools led by fools I say

Everything wrong with Ai in one post

I believe the original goal of AI was to help the stupid and ignorant get access to summary data from authoritative published information. Yet because AI has no sense of  reality (fact from fiction) or ethics (right from wrong) we instead get stories told by morons (AI is a moron) to morons. Eg I asked a question and got another answer ...

So if the person reading the answer doesn't understand nuclear reactor types then they're fucked and will think the answer is yes.

The other very real problem here is energy demand. AI searches require a lot more energy; 10 times more is mooted.

According to Alex de Vries, founder of the research company Digiconomist, one result from artificial intelligence consumes about 3 W⋅h, which is 10 times more than a regular search result.

So that's a real problem too, and indeed Google and Microsoft are so aware of this (and also aware of how the morons are fucking society with their short sighted plans for how we can reach net zero) that they are currently building their own nuclear reactors (probably BWR at first) to be able to supply this growing demand and get off the grid (being increasingly run by populists; which means morons).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯