> To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is

> To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is right and we need to radically upend our concept of sentience We don't really have a mechanistic understanding of sentience, so I'm not sure there's much to overturn. This is why I'm so annoyed every time some "expert" claims that LaMDA or GPT are not sentient or not conscious or what have you. These are all vague concepts that lack mechanistic definitions that would let us make such definitive claims. That said, consciousness is almost certainly an illusion, and it will be a particular kind of information processing system with certain properties [1]. GPT and other LLMs may or may not qualify, time will tell. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119