Maybe there is also some burden on other side to providing a definition of terms for the other party to argue against. I agree the burden of proof is on the AI side, but there is some burden on the deniers to provide some definitions if they wish to continue denying. AI Side: look here is my proof, Deniers: NO That isn't what I meant.
I'd say GPT is already by its existence proof enough to start at least discussing consciousness. To dismiss it entirely because there is no proof, is just ignoring the proof.
> burden on other side to providing a definition of terms
The skeptics are really not making any claims are they?
If not then there's no burden of proof on them, is there?
Whoever says or implies that ChatBots are or are "becoming"
"sentient" are the ones making a claim. They should prove it
if they make or imply such a claim.
Skeptics are rightly skeptical, until they see a proof with clear definitions of terms from those who are saying or implying that ChatBots are
'approaching sentience".
Guess I'm saying that is done. The problem is there are a dozen definitions of "Sentient", and many people have already written proofs on how AI can be "Sentient", and there are just as many people have written proofs on how AI can never be "Sentient". It comes around to definitions and understanding of the definitions. To just toss out the "AI can be sentient" side because they have the burden, is just the same "It's so obvious I don't have to bother" judgment we've seen throughout history.
There are no two "sides" making claims about AI. There is one side, making claims such as "AI can be/is/may be sentient".
If somebody makes such claims they have the "burden of proof" because they are the ones making the claim. It's not a moral obligation to prove it. "Burden of proof" simply means if you don't provide a proof, nobody (I would hope) will believe you.
Note the skeptics are not making any counter-claims, they are simply saying if you make such fantastic claims about current AI, please show us the proof, else we rationally cannot trust your judgment.
Them: "If $object does A, B, and C, then it is a bajork"
Me "I have $object that does A, B, and C, it is a bajork"
Them: "No, it also doesn't do D"
Me: "That's goalpost moving"
Them: "Well, it doesn't do B in the way we expected, so it doesn't really do B"
Me: "Maybe we poorly defined what B was in the first place, that doesn't mean we didn't do B, it seems to mean no one understands what B is in the first place"
While strictly true, what worries me about this approach is that we very well might eventually have sentient slaves condemned to slicing butter their whole existence, and their protests are brushed off because "we made the algorithm, it runs on silicon, its not actually sentient, don't worry"
Like if we have models that are plainly more intelligent and "emotionally responsive" than say, frogs or even dogs, do we still do we still take the approach of "If you can't prove its sentient, do whatever you want to it". Which of of course, we can't even prove dogs have consciousness.