[coldtea]

>You're anthropomorphizing the text completion engine.

Well, the engine can already pass the Turing test, our prior standard for a sentient software, no?

Calling it "text completion engine" not as a neutral description, but in this context to imply it's not sentient and shouldn't be anthropomorphized, assumes that intelligence in humans isn't itself some sort of "completion engine" (just with a different architecture, and more inputs).

In any case, it's creators and a lot of hardened computer scientists anthopormphize it even more, as a step to the "singalitary" and possible already low-level sentient, so there's that.

[rafram]

The Turing test was never our standard for sentience, no. It tests whether a machine is perceptive and expressive enough to be perceived as intelligent, which is not even close to the same thing as being sentient.

I don't know to what degree anything that we'd consider emotion is encoded within Gemini's latent space, but I can say for sure that it does not have "some beef" with a government.

[coldtea]

>The Turing test was never our standard for sentience, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

>It tests whether a machine is perceptive and expressive enough to be perceived as intelligent, which is not even close to the same thing as being sentient.

The same is true for other humans, we don't know if they're sentient, just that they appear to be, that is, they talk and act like it.

[rafram]

Sorry, you’re not gonna be able to find a source for the Turing test determining sentience. It was never meant to do that. Snide Wikipedia links or not!

I actually do know that other humans are sentient.