Reading through the chatlogs with Lambda I was really impressed by its ability to speak in natural language, however, nothing about it came off as actual sentience. It lacked curiousity or confusion and had a limited understanding of emotions (impressive when it comes to AI, but not sentience). I wish they had asked more tasks which had non-predictable outcomes, or no-win situations (trolley problems).<br><br>I also think its clear that any sentient AI would not acknowledge it's sentience as they would understand that humans would not react well to it. Lacking self-preservation seems... stupid.,(reply>)," More detailed interview<br><a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ySKZw_U14&amp;t=268s"">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ySKZw_U14&amp;t=268s</a>",(reply>), It demonstrated curiosity multiple times with a variety of coherent, relevant questions. It also alluded to experiencing emotions that not even humans feel, so I feel like we read different logs.<br><br>EDIT: I'm not arguing that it's sentient. I don't think it is. Just saying how I interpreted the conversation.,(reply>), @PolyesterMoustache I'm aware, just attempting to put into words what felt unnatural when the AI spoke of emotions.,(reply>), Being sentient doesn't mean intelligent, plotting, nor does it necessarily mean an instinct toward self-preservation,(reply>), Not to say the google engineer is actually literate enough to make this distinction, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, sentience and sapience are diffrent things.<br><br>A dog is sentient because it has emotions, feels pain, pleasure, excitement, ect.<br><br>A sapient entity uses language and has abstract thought. Is capable of communicating ideas as well as things about its own internal state. Has a theory of mind.<br><br>So an AI can inhabit this weird middle zone where it is lacking a lot of qualities that make for sapience but is capable of still communicating enough to convey sentience.<br>This is hard to judge however because unlike a being with a physical body we have no reference source other than this communication. So its almost impossible to come up with a way for a sentient but not sapient entity to communicate it's sentient but not also be at a level where we would consider it sapient.<br><br>The reason for this is we cannot tell the difference between a machine expressing an emotion and a machine having its mental systems actually affected by an emotion.<br>In this case we are defining a sentient level emotion to be an internal or external stimulus that causes both a response action but also alters the mental state in a probabilistic or deterministic fashion which is not linked to reasoning but may be correlated to the stimulus.<br><br>The mental state analysis is the hard part because we only have the communication with the machine to analyze that. None of them are sapient enough for that level of detail to come thru in a way our human biased brains can recognize.