Is it ?

Fluxer?

Yes and the password managers automate it such that you don’t have to write 20+ long random characters multiple times a day

The hard password you think of are actually very low entropy and easy to crack, the only good ones are random ones, which are hard to remember (except for the random words ones). It’s impossible to remember 200+ totally random password for a regular human

Can’t wait for you to detail the transformers architecture

Exactly. How entitled.

The argument basically: “'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient”

Yes they can, easily. That doesn’t mean they are sentient though. Just that these are too broad to mean anything.

Have you ever trained a neural network, or studied how they work? I highly doubt so, and I highly doubt you are the computer omniscient you are pretending to be.

I don’t think you have the cognitive requirements to understand why your dictionary definitions are completely irrelevant here

I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here.

You are getting off topic.

Correct, but phenomenology can be more precise than one opinion

I am starting to think you’re sponsored by Merriam-Webster

The fact they are trained to complete sentences and are thus word predicting models only tells us vaguely how they work. It does not tell us anything about their sentience.

The sentience, if there is, comes from the emergent reasoning that develops in the massive neural network to offer actual good predictions: the more you think, the better the predictions.

For example, models trained to produce textual board games predictions can be sounded to show they developed subnetworks corresponding to an inner representation of the states of the game. Models trained to produce images have emergent subnetworks on depth-maps, contours and lighting.

This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence

You can say it, but that’s not a proof

Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I’d say it’s even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology.

Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be.

Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks.

Having “real intelligence” is not a sufficient requirement to decide over which systems are sentient or not e.g. there are very low IQ “real intelligences”.

Dictionary defintions serve for a partial understanding but are not enough to understand scientific concepts, especially definitions that are not under scientific consensus. Moreover, current AI systems, including tool-assisted LLMs can satisfy these definitions.

Since you like exercising your brain, I’d recommend reading about sophisms.

Note that I am not asserting that LLMs are sentient, but that your statement is too confident and that the subject requires actual care.

And who are you to assert that? How well defined is sentience already?

Not having a license or not knowing how to use a lawn mower is being useless these days