[snmx999]

When discussing AIs being sentient it is rarely discussed what being sentient means. It should be defined what that means and how it can be proven. I wouldn't know how to prove any human being being sentient if I cannot rely on conversational methods, as apparently that is not a accepted way, as shown by the recent Google AI researcher controversy.

However, I can make a simple computer program which is self-aware at least according to some definitions (a loop with reflective access to it's own variables, input/output with external systems and self-modifying code).

[deltaonezero]

People already know what it means all over HN. They have basically already said that lamda is not sentient. So no need to even define it when we already know what it is (and lamda is not it).

[snmx999]

I am not arguing that lambda is sentient. I am saying that to even have that discussion a commond understanding of meaning of "sentient" has to be established. Otherwise you cannot even establish a consensus or say people agree on the matter.

You say "So no need to even define it when we already know what it is". I don't think you know when you don't know what "it" is for other people.

[deltaonezero]

I mean they know in the sense that they can point to any random object and say "that object is sentient" or "that object is not sentient." We cannot articulate the definition, but the fact that when we look at something we can tell you if it's sentient or not, implies that we know what sentience is.