>It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of p

>It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. Possible. But you would have to prove this because there's no evidence for what you say either. It's easy to get this evidence though. Just DO an actual probe of this chat bot and post the conversation. >It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible. Of course it's not worth the time. I'm just saying his claim is useless because it applies to every single conversation. It's like saying all words in the english language are composed of letters. The irrationality comes from the fact that such a statement is POINTLESS to say. >Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log. I never said it's good enough. I said it's convincing and compelling. Why? Because No previous chatbot could achieve this level of complexity. Maybe a better way to put it is... previous chat logs with AI actually had evidence against sentience. This one doesn't. The needle moves forward not because it's proof, but it is one of the first chat logs that doesn't display disproof. That is quite compelling.