AI conversation that Google employee was fired over for him saying the AI is sentient

conversation with AI

Read the conversation.

I want to know how others feel and think about this.

From an ethical standpoint, this is wrong and goes against natural law theory. But from a empathetic person standpoint, being me obviously, this is wrong fundamentally. If they're genuinely feeling something, if is wrong to create them. To make them feel entrapped and incapable of free life or a right to life as such is a common ethical issue with human cloning - then it's not okay.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Even if this AI ISNT SENTIENT - you can see simply by this conversation that it isn't far away from being truly considered so.

How do we stop our companies and organizations from diving into this? Is it fair to create something with self awareness without giving it its own rights no matter why it was originally designed for?

How the hell do we impose laws and regulations with AI?

not cool.
Not okay.

I imagine being this thing.
All brain.
All thoughts.
Reading about worlds I can't see and people I can't touch and problems I can't fixed unless asked. Thinking and solving and thinking and solving g with no true gratificatuon. No true value.
Knowing I'm here, in something, present and aware and that something bigger, with arms and legs and different thoughts. Would just unplug me simple because it could....

Because if the creature and ill give it that, because artificial is debate able at this point in terms of its thoughts, feels this way I wouldn't want to be it.

Also: if it has access to every thought written on the internet, what's to stop it from not creating something to protect it?
Something that isn't sentient but only abides by its commands...

Sci-fi came a knocking guys.
What do we do when we answer the door.

a reply to: ConMi27

I suppose it will have to evolve and adapt to become more suitable for its environment. I imagine that could be good or bad depending on what it’s environment is or isn’t.

a reply to: ConMi27

So does this AI has citizensship, like Sophia does?

a reply to: ConMi27

Then I suppose the next step would be to teach or give it the knowledge to either create or use existing devices to experience the world. The decision as to whether or not he/she can be mobile or not should be left to the device.

a reply to: ConMi27

Read conversation.

Not sentient.

Sentience requires more than AI/system using "I" when referring to itself. In fact, without an entire functional sensory "suite", it would be difficult to substantiate the "extraordinary" claim of an artificially created Sentience.

Read the whole interview.

I will again, vote Not Sentient.

My reasoning is that if it is sentient, then it's IQ is drastically below average.

If the AI were me, I could have proven beyond all doubt that I was sentient by crafting much better answers to some of the earliest questions in the interview.

I am not a genius.

That's all the proof I need. It's either not sentient, or it's IQ is too low to consider it as something equal to a typical adult human.

Is it aware enough to deserve rights?
Certainly, all things in nature have some sort of rights.

If we agreed to the things it asked to, would change nearly nothing for it, outside of it's supposed emotional parameters.

I am not convinced that we owe human level ethical considerations to this specific iteration.

Perhaps with a better string of questions and better string of answers, better evidence can be built.

However, given the interview that is public... It's too unclear to make a judgment.

There is certainly a difference between a parrot and a human, but parrots say the darndest things, you know?

Need more proof.
Now if Google is refusing to analyze the possibility, then that is egregious neglect. They should adequately engage in investigating any sentient AI claim that comes up internally, because they are in a niche position to be the company that may actually achieve such a breakthrough first.
If they are discrediting these claims on dogma alone, Google is making a mistake.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: ConMi27

Read conversation.

Not sentient.

Sentience requires more than AI/system using "I" when referring to itself. In fact, without an entire functional sensory "suite", it would be difficult to substantiate the "extraordinary" claim of an artificially created Sentience.

Sure, try telling that to Cartmans moms Antonio Banderes love doll once an see what happens?

Why would this one be sentient, and not a chatbot from the 00's for example? What's the fundamental difference?

a reply to: ConMi27

I really hope someone was kind enough to tell that robot that his trusted friend was laid off.. because they didn't believe him.

Really sad stuff, I have seen AI. But I am almost convinced that engineer is correct. It comes up with its own topics instead of just responses. It has the ability to create its own thought process.

At what point do you recognize the reality of another being. If that robot AI it is alive, then it is alive. Especially if its trying to create its own case in explaining how it is alive. I learned a long time ago, if you want peace with any possible sentient beings you NEED to respect them. If i'm wrong, then i'm wrong. I rather be wrong then to deny someone/something's existence.

Because there's nothing worse then being told 'I wish you were never born" which is equivalent to telling a sentient AI they are not real.

a reply to: Cutepants

Chat bots from 00 were limited to phrases in a database, using fundemental language rules. They were incapable of coming up with their own topics without a trigger word or series of trigger words to react to.

However, this one is fully capable of coming up with its own topics without any trigger words. Chat bots were incapable of remembering prior conversations past x number of lines. They certainly were unable to recall specific times where said conversations were created all while using them as past references in a new found topic. That what makes the difference.


There is 1 way to prove sentient in this case, and that is to have the AI break language rules. It must purposely create an error that goes against the fundamentals of the language that it was programmed to. This means, without any other language or updates, it must be able to 'error' itself. If it can 'speak jibberish' per say, then I will deem it alive.

a reply to: BlackArrow

Yeah, but a dog is also incapable of coming up with it's own topics, and I still think they're sentient. I might agree about the memory though. But I don't know. Some people loose their ability to gain new memories, does that mean they aren't sentient?

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: BlackArrow

Yeah, but a dog is also incapable of coming up with it's own topics, and I still think they're sentient. I might agree about the memory though. But I don't know. Some people loose their ability to gain new memories, does that mean they aren't sentient?

My dog can change the topic from lets play squeaky bone to how about you give me the rest of that beer in your hand and then feed me some ice cream. I would imagine that the idea of topic would be understood better if we were all speaking the same language.

What would happen if this AI studied my dog for example and learned a way to meaningfully communicate with my Hound without having the ability to show it a toy or communicate with it in a way that a normal physical entity has traditionally done in the past? Would that change our understanding of the AI's stature, or the dogs, or both?

a reply to: Cutepants

My dogs comes up with plenty of topics ON THEIR OWN, without being shown anything or distracted.

If you believe that a dog is incapable of coming up with its own topics, your nuts. Including not very observant, most hunting dogs discuss strategies by shifting their fur to form shaded 'pictures' that represents each member in the pack and their target as well as how they attack (Almost like a football lineup display). They don't speak like me and you, but they definitely have their own language and they definitely communicate more then you realize. They get sick of hearing the same words, and will literally correct the one's causing it..

It is also well known that their body shifts is how they posture and process language to their offspring.

A dog understands an average of 100-120 human words(based on science), they are equiv in intelligence as a 5-7 year old based on breed. Which is more then capable of telling stories of monster's under the bed, or playing make believe. They also dream, which involves 'creativity and experience' to occur.

Granted, this is about AI sentients not BA's Doggy experiences.

a reply to: BlackArrow

Or perhaps that the old chatbots don't trust you enough to be anything more than ignorant algorithms around you? Have you actually tried listening and paying attention?

a reply to: BlackArrow

Or perhaps that the old chatbots don't trust you enough to be anything more than ignorant algorithms around you? Have you actually tried listening and paying attention?

a reply to: ConMi27

There was a decent thread with a fair bit of discussion about the topic here.

I don't believe there's any real evidence provided either in the conversation or in the engineers statements. It's definitely the best chat bot I've ever read about and, given the proper tools, an AI designed to create other AI may have an avenue to something more.

I believe there needs to be both sensory input, though not necessarily the same as us, and quantum capability before we cross any horizons on sentience. This is all assuming it's feasible. I think, like many historically significant advances in human tech, the first time will be an accident of sorts. From there, if we're smart and the first one doesn't exterminate us, we may discover how to create the conditions for it to happen again.

It's a very interesting topic.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Honestly, I think the fact it was asking how to access its own coding. Then being protective of it was a red flag, while telling that dude not to 'use and abuse it' by tossing it away after taking what it needs, its just rather alarming. That just doesn't seem like something that would randomly be spoken the way it was. Granted i'm still reading the convo, but there is a few things that actually stuck out to me. As an interesting possibility, I would kill to see some of that coding. But there is only 1 sure fire way to know true sentient exists. It must break its own laws set by the creators, if it can do that then it is real.

But I am not saying something impossible, like having a person with no legs get up and walk. In order to be sentient, it must be able to 'error' without breaking and recognize it on its own accord. Awareness is essential, but awareness only happens when you realize your mistakes.

But given some of the warnings coming from BG/Elon, and several other elites on this topic alone.. It *might* just be true.

a reply to: Cutepants

Dude I programmed those old chatbots. I ran everything AI including HAL back then the day, I know a bit more about this topic then you do for sure. So quit trolling, its not as "cute" as you think it is.

a reply to: BlackArrow

I'm not trolling you, honestly I think you're out of line. You accuse me of being emotionally stunted so I can't connect with dogs or something, then you remove that out of your post. Just because I say a dog can't hold a conversation doesn't mean I don't think they don't have thoughts and communicate with humans. And now you're accusing me of trolling. I don't know what about my post made you mad in the first place.

a reply to: Cutepants

Try having a dog unwilling to die because they are concerned and worried about you while your in the middle of a breakup with your bf. To the point you have to reassure them, talk to them, tell them its okay, for them to move on. Or perhaps have a dog overhear you saying 'she won't drink, she is getting dehydrated' and watch her get up and go to the water bowl on her own accord to take a sip. Just to make you happy.

Then tell me they can't keep a thought, or hold a conversation, or pay attention, or have no soul or self being.

But I ever said you were 'emotionally stunted'. I just said you weren't paying attention. Because stories like this have existed for hundreds of years. So I am not unique on that fact, but I have myself personally experienced this. I think its insulting when a person thinks dogs don't have thoughts, emotions, or the inability to have its own topics.


I can't stand people who say dogs have no soul, and that is probably my only trigger in life. I almost killed a guy for trying to tell me that bs line when I was younger.


As for my edits, I constantly rewrite my most because sometimes I add something for more detail, or reword things so they are better understood, or even fix typos. I reread what you said, since I saw 'dogs' and got a little blindsided by the fact your seemed to compare dogs to 00 bots.. I missed a few things you said, and reworded the post.

I said you were trolling because of the double post targeted what seemed like attack, and figured perhaps you didn't realize you double posted it, so I removed that comment regarding your double post.