> but it ultimately it is still just a machine. We* used to think like this of animals and today animals have (limited) rights, one can be sent to prison for a

> but it ultimately it is still just a machine. We* used to think like this of animals and today animals have (limited) rights, one can be sent to prison for animal cruelty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_machine *Descartes: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780199375967.001.0001/oso-9780199375967-chapter-13 https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o... I think it's inevitable that we will see this same debate re-emerge about sentient AI. > near the bottom all you have is simple digital logic This reasoning fails because you ignore the data stored in the weights and biases. You can't understand why object recognition works, let alone the fine details of GPT-3 when you look at a GPU under a microscope or even peak at the RAM with a super advanced multimeter. Similarly, you can't understand what made Einstein a genius if you could have looked at his body with an MRI or even know everything about how DNA or metabolism works. Nature provided us already a few examples that evolution can take very different paths that leads to intelligence. I don't see why it couldn't be a form of intelligence based on silicon and logic gates. Or if it has a quantum processor component is that advanced enough because we can't really explain it? Of course I'm extrapolating here a lot based on current technology, but eventually it will be incredibly hard tell the difference. At that point, does it really matter? As you can see, it's already hard for some people to do so.