I guess I should give up this fight and I'm just being prescriptive about language, but I wish that people would stop using "sentience" when they mean (at least

I guess I should give up this fight and I'm just being prescriptive about language, but I wish that people would stop using "sentience" when they mean (at least) "sapience." Also even in the realm of sapience, I wish there was more acknowledgement of the fact that sapience is not a perfect synonym for "equivalent to a 5 year old." There's no requirement that sapience be specifically human-like and no reason to think of sapience as a binary category with humans as the lower bound of what can be accepted. "What if computers became sentient" is treated like an existential question by so many people, but when I think about sentience, I am reminded that we create, modify, and destroy a large number of sentient entities every single day for our own purposes: they're called chickens. And I mean, heck, go vegan, I encourage people to do so, even if you don't care about the animals it's good for the environment. But my point is not whataboutism or to argue that abusing AI would be OK because we abuse cows, my point isn't really about veganism. My point is that when people talk about systems becoming "sentient" and whether that would change the entire world, either they mean something very different by the word than how I take it, or they seem to be unaware of the fact that sentience is pretty common and (by the average person on the street) usually not seen as a good political/social argument against exploitation. Anyway, the evidence offered here is pretty weak on its own (a single chat log, and one where we don't know the extent of editing/condensing, and an argument based almost entirely on the Turing test). But I'm less here to argue about what the logs indicate, and more here to pointlessly quibble about language, even though at this point I should probably give up and accept that generally accepted usage of "sentience" now means "human-like sapience." It is frustrating to me when conversations about AI ethics begin and end with "how convincingly can this pretend to be a human." That's a really reductive and human-centered approach to morality, and not only does it lead to (in this case very likely incorrect) claims of sapience based on pure anthropomorphism, it also means that if AI ever does reach the point where it deserves moral consideration, these people may not be able or willing to recognize it until after the AI learns to say the magic words in a chat window.