> I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. That doesn't stand to reason at all, it's just popularly assumed. I can hear my thou

> I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. That doesn't stand to reason at all, it's just popularly assumed. I can hear my thoughts, but I can't hear yours. I can see through my eyes, but I can't see through yours, and so on. There are many differences between "I" and "everyone else". Just because something is true about you doesn't mean it stands to reason that it's true about everyone else. > Additionally, other humans act in a way I would expect from someone sentient. This is totally circular reasoning. Humans only act the way you expect sentient people to act because your training data for "sentient people" is "humans". The only person you know is sentient is yourself. Personally I find that most people quite frequently act very differently to how I would act. Should I conclude that they're not sentient? Further, the fact that machines don't act like humans is no evidence at all that they're not sentient, it's only evidence that they're not human. They are very different to humans, so of course they don't act the same. They don't have bodies like us, or biological needs like us. That says nothing about whether or not they're sentient.