> I'm not saying that I believe the engineer has encountered a general AI, but I think dismissing his claim as ridiculous based on the little information we hav

> I'm not saying that I believe the engineer has encountered a general AI, but I think dismissing his claim as ridiculous based on the little information we have and Google (who has a vested interest to the opposite) statementa, is premature. The burden of proof is on the claimant in this case. AI has been overhyped to death and we get articles about AI becoming sentient almost weekly from the major news sources. At this point I think we should be free to dismiss any claims that do not have serious evidence behind them. We have provided with ~15 cherry-picked lines from this AI. That is pretty scant evidence that a revolutionary generalized AI has been built.