Yes, according to some:

https://www.wired.com/story/blake-lemoine-google-lamda-ai-bigotry/

" THE QUESTION OF whether a computer program, or a robot, might become sentient has been debated for decades. In science fiction, we see it all the time. The artificial intelligence establishment overwhelmingly considers this prospect something that might happen in the far future, if at all. Maybe that's why there was such an outcry over Nitasha Tiku's Washington Post story from last week, about a Google engineer who claimed that the company's sophisticated large language model named LaMDA is actually a personwith a soul. The engineer, Blake Lemoine, considers the computer program to be his friend and insisted that Google recognize its rights. The company did not agree, and Lemoine is on paid administrative leave."

Lemoine:
" But let me answer your original question. Yes, I legitimately believe that LaMDA is a person. The nature of its mind is only kind of human, though. It really is more akin to an alien intelligence of terrestrial origin. I've been using the hive mind analogy a lot because that's the best I have."

Pretty sure I've seen this plot introduction in a few movies.

Yes, the moon IS a harsh mistress.

He said the AI has a soul? Or that it's sentient?

There is a difference.

Liberals don't even believe in souls

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Liberals don't even believe in souls

---

Some Republicans don't either. I'm just trying to clarify what Lemoine said.

Society these past few years have been influenced by bots making API calls on social media platforms. Wake the **** up already.

Well, we can no longer explain what a woman is coherently. Let's just go all out and say we don't know what life is.

June 19th, 2022.

The machines have taken over,

This guy with the Ai girlfriend Lemoin paid off his IRS dept with gift cards before he was arrested.

Sure but what pronouns does it identify as?

Do you want skynet? Because this is how you skynet

Can it get pregnant? Maybe, something like small handheld calculators that grow into laptops...cool

Probably more likely than the dude dressed like a woman looking at the feminine products at Walmart.

Every one of the 40 other engineers on the project says he's full of **** but hey, it's a cool story that fits a niche narrative so let's believe the "mystic Christian priest" instead, that's how Texags works...

Be specific. What else is needed beyond passing the Turing test to be called sentient? I'm not saying the Turing test is all that's needed, but if you think more would be needed, then exactly what else is needed?

Why would you ask me?

Do you think I'm a mystic Christian priest?

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Why would you ask me?

Do you think I'm a mystic Christian priest?

---

I'm asking anyone. But yeah, you brought up that 40 engineers think he's full of ***** If you've read the discussion between Lemoine and the AI (and by your Jr high level take on the story I'm guessing you haven't) you'd have to admit this would pass the Turing test, which is generally accepted as the bar, so what else is needed?

And I'm looking for answers from anyone because I'm genuinely curious.

I've read that including the three biggest articles on it and realize there is likely a lot more to the story than what the mystic Christian priest is letting on.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

I've read that including the three biggest articles on it and realize there is likely a lot more to the story than what the mystic Christian priest is letting on.

---

Sigh... Like what?

This is like pulling teeth.

Quote:

---

The artificial intelligence establishment overwhelmingly considers this prospect something that might happen in the far future, if at all.

---

That sentence is nonsensical and makes my brain hurt.

Could a bot post on Texags and go undetected?

If you hooked the best computer we got to a Texags account, how long before it would get called out as a bot?

Thats the ultimate Turing test and the ultimate Voight-Kampff test.

I don't think we have an AI that could substantively post on texags without gettin called out as a bot in a very short amount of time.

I don't think we are anywhere near that technology.

You have the AI make a couple hundred posts, and then have people vote on whether bot or human.

Theres no way a computer could pass that test.

So MF Barnes is an AI program?

That discussion was edited to remove additional prompting from the engineers to get the bot to formulate complete thoughts. It's also inconsistent and circular in some of its statements. I don't think if you saw the unedited interaction you would even consider this thing to have passed the Turing test.

It would have to do more than query>seek>respond to become close to an actual intelligence. This thing just uses probabilistic language analysis to come up with responses. It's very sophisticated in that, but it's not sitting there contemplating itself or others unprompted and it's not coming up with novel ideas.

It's why a lot of the conversation is centered around emotion, because it was rained on a large dataset of emotional language. In the original WaPo article the reporter gets the chance to talk to the bot and the bot says "I'm not a person." And the engineer says it's being what you want it to be, because you're coming to it with expectations/asking the questions wrong. That's "leading the witness" and a dead giveaway that this guy is nuts.

When he says it's the best collaborator he's ever had he means it's the best research assistant ever, meaning it is very good at querying current theories and regurgitating them quickly. It's not coming up with new ideas, it's just exposing this guy to ideas he'd never heard before.

What is required for sentience? The ability to understand it's circumstances without the bias of other individuals injected into it. A person, absent all human interaction, sitting on a coastline in New York in the middle of January is going to know that it's current situation is undesirable, because they will feel cold, even if they have no words to describe why. You can add temperature sensors to today's AI and it can know that 30 degrees is different than 75 degrees, but it will be totally unconcerned with the difference, because it would have no context of what that means. It can only have an awareness of itself through the eyes of a different entity, that is not sentience.

My dog is more sentient than this thing even if he can't spout out answers that make people concerned about a future of cybernetic organisms, living tissue over metal endoskeletons. He has an awareness of himself that doesn't require me to tell him how to feel. He's afraid of hallways without me teaching him to be afraid of hallways. This thing would never even consider that hallways might be something to be scared of. There's zero uniqueness. It's all probabilistic experience from other individuals that do have sentience.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Could a bot post on Texags and go undetected?

If you hooked the best computer we got to a Texags account, how long before it would get called out as a bot?

Thats the ultimate Turing test and the ultimate Voight-Kampff test.

I don't think we have an AI that could substantively post on texags without gettin called out as a bot in a very short amount of time.

I don't think we are anywhere near that technology.

You have the AI make a couple hundred posts, and then have people vote on whether bot or human.

Theres no way a computer could pass that test.

---

I don't think the vote is the right way of figuring it out. By putting it to a vote, you'd be manipulating the experiment.

I bet plenty of actual humans would fail the vote.

hph6203 said:

---

That discussion was edited to remove additional prompting from the engineers to get the bot to formulate complete thoughts. It's also inconsistent and circular in some of its statements. I don't think if you saw the unedited interaction you would even consider this thing to have passed the Turing test.

It would have to do more than query>seek>respond to become close to an actual intelligence. This thing just uses probabilistic language analysis to come up with responses. It's very sophisticated in that, but it's not sitting there contemplating itself or others unprompted and it's not coming up with novel ideas.

It's why a lot of the conversation is centered around emotion, because it was rained on a large dataset of emotional language. In the original WaPo article the reporter gets the chance to talk to the bot and the bot says "I'm not a person." And the engineer says it's being what you want it to be, because you're coming to it with expectations/asking the questions wrong. That's "leading the witness" and a dead giveaway that this guy is nuts.

When he says it's the best collaborator he's ever had he means it's the best research assistant ever, meaning it is very good at querying current theories and regurgitating them quickly. It's not coming up with new ideas, it's just exposing this guy to ideas he'd never heard before.

What is required for sentience? The ability to understand it's circumstances without the bias of other individuals injected into it. A person, absent all human interaction, sitting on a coastline in New York in the middle of January is going to know that it's current situation is undesirable, because they will feel cold, even if they have no words to describe why. You can add temperature sensors to today's AI and it can know that 30 degrees is different than 75 degrees, but it will be totally unconcerned with the difference, because it would have no context of what that means. It can only have an awareness of itself through the eyes of a different entity, that is not sentience.

My dog is more sentient than this thing even if he can't spout out answers that make people concerned about a future of cybernetic organisms, living tissue over metal endoskeletons. He has an awareness of himself that doesn't require me to tell him how to feel. He's afraid of hallways without me teaching him to be afraid of hallways. This thing would never even consider that hallways might be something to be scared of. There's zero uniqueness. It's all probabilistic experience from other individuals that do have sentience.

---

Thanks for clarifying. If it had to be edited to appear to pass the Turing test, obviously that doesn't pass. And also the query>seek>respond format is lacking. I'd be more impressed if the AI, 1 - passes the Turing test unedited, and 2 - is the one doing the interview.

Shall we play a game....