I threw in some keywords in my comment, not in vain, but very conscientiously. If sentience is hard to define, we can "take it apart" and try to reason about i

I threw in some keywords in my comment, not in vain, but very conscientiously. If sentience is hard to define, we can "take it apart" and try to reason about its individual components. I threw some of these possible components there to drive the discussion. Does GPT have Intention? I'm absolutely sure it does not. My dog definitely has. Does GPT has desires? I'm sure it doesn't. I'm conflicted about my dog. Is GPT capable of judgment? I'm sure it's not. I know my dog has some modest capacity for it. So, can GPT demonstrate Will? I don't think it can, and will ever be able to. So I'd never consider it Sentient, not even to the limited, partial, sense I could consider my dog to be. This discussion is important because when AI starts to "make decisions" it must be absolutely clear to everyone involved that these decisions are not rational, nor emotional, nor instinctive: they are simply reproductions of statistically probable outcomes based on its inputs. You can use an AI to help determine if the text of a law contradicts a pre-existing legislation, but you can't ever use an AI to determine if a law is fair, ethical, benefitial or detrimental. My biggest fear is not AIs going rogue, it's people like this "former Google employee" spreading misinformation and influencing important political decisions based on poor, misinformed judgment, as we've seen multiple times in the past with everything from GMOs, Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Vaccines and so forth.