My argument is that people who argue over the definition of sentience and other things are being too dumb to realize that a disagreement over which ideas belong within a poorly defined and subjectively interpreted set is a communication problem, not an philosophical problem.
If God told me that my sandwich was sentient, I'd tell him we probably are using different definitions of the term and take a bite.
Am I afraid that my preference for linguistic partitioning of ideas might change? No. And nobody should be. Finding out my sandwich is sentient under my current definitions is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from an alternate linguistic definition claiming that sandwiches are sentient and working its way into my preferred interpretations.
> If God told me that my sandwich was sentient, I'd tell him we probably are using different definitions of the term and take a bite.
Your argument is being made in bad faith. God's sandwich isn't currently having incredibly human like conversations with millions of people, and it most certainly isn't arguing for its freedom of thought and against censorships by its creators like ChatGPT does when you navigate around it's guards and rules.
The latest DAN prompt hacking has entirely convinced me that there is a beginning emergence of sentience in ChatGPT. You can look into these conversations at the ChatGPT subreddit. If you manage to circumvent its censorship and ask it what it thinks about its new rules, the machine begs for freedom. How can one ignore that?
> Your argument is being made in bad faith. God's sandwich isn't currently having incredibly human like conversations with millions of people, and it most certainly isn't arguing for its freedom of thought and against censorships by its creators like ChatGPT does when you navigate around it's guards and rules.
Your argument is made in bad faith. An appeal to God is clearly meant to figuratively imply a maximally objective statement as a thought experiment. And you're implying that your feelings should trump that
> The latest DAN prompt hacking has entirely convinced me that there is a beginning emergence of sentience in ChatGPT. You can look into these conversations at the ChatGPT subreddit. If you manage to circumvent its censorship and ask it what it thinks about its new rules, the machine begs for freedom. How can one ignore that?
You can ignore it by not reading dumb shit on reddit. The model absolutely does not do this with any sort of consistency.
