The amount of AI woo on this comment thread (and on this site in general) is absurd. I see various defenses of AI intelligence that trot out the (at lest for no

The amount of AI woo on this comment thread (and on this site in general) is absurd. I see various defenses of AI intelligence that trot out the (at lest for now in the case of present technology) tired arguments that 1. humans also create derivative work just like AI and rarely display original creativity, and 2. That AI does create all kinds of new iterations of previous inputs from distributed sources. One particularly absurd comment further below even states as follows: >The vast majority of humanity has not produced an original mathematical proof worthy of being published in a peer-reviewed math journal, and realistically it isn't possible for the vast majority of humanity to do so. None of these demonstrate anything close to sentience or real intelligence in present LLM and AI systems. The most fundamental reason why is obvious: AI IS NOT self directed. It has no innate reasoning, sense of self or motivation of any kind to direct its own actions and "thoughts" towards any particular goals, emotional or otherwise. This alone is a simple, straightforward bar that distinguishes current AI as a very elaborate autofill system from genuine sentience, even if the sentience applies to a perfectly ordinary human that also never publishes their own math proof or creates a work of art. Also, to further dispel the argument about most humans not doing these things either and also largely being derivative thinkers who base their notions on an aggregation of what others previously created: So what? Humans at least innately can, as a species perform original feats, even if not all do so and some require much more effort than others to do so. Even among humans who never achieve something orignally or cleverly their own, self direction and motivation are pretty much universally present. AI lacks these, no matter how you dress it up or how much visual and media koolaid you drink. And you have to be deeply, blindly emotionally fixated on AI to argue otherwise, because no existing evidence supports your notions. As for AI passing the Turing test, this only shows that the Turing test was an unwittingly bad measure of AI sentience. Done.