I don't think that is the case.

I'm still not convinced most people I speak to at work are sentient.

I majored in Philosophy. Though I wouldn't want to be an AI ethics consultant for one of these big companies because I imagine that whatever I write down would have to preserve profits (first and foremost) and then gaslight everyone into thinking it's all perfectly ethical and okay and no one (including mother earth) is being harmed in the process.

You don't need an ethicist if you don't have ethics! /s

I just wish we could put this dumb sentient AI stuff to bed for now. Congrats, you guys built the most powerful (and wasteful) auto-complete. It's not sentient and your marketing doesn't have to be hyperbolic lies.

All computers are just a minimum of three layers of NAND gates

he made more than a NAND gate. he created a 1-bit perceptron and a perceptron-training circuit after figuring out how to make a NAND gate

I think theres a big hole in that plan.

The argument in the paper is a bit more nuanced - it's mostly arguing that we over-anthropomorphise AI, and this taints out results on AI sentience by pre-biasing towards some human like qualities already. Part of this comes from the AI attempting to emulated a human notion of identity.

Using a contrived goat powered AoE II AI would likely yield less assumed human-like quality bias. It would also be hilarious.

People it this thread does not know what the Turing test actually tests. It is Ok, I guess the blame fails on pop culture.

The Turing test is not a test of sentience, it is a test if a machine can fool a human being into thinking it is sentient. And machines have passed this test for decades already. Who would have thought that our predisposition to anthropomorphize everything would make us so susceptible to thinking stuff is sentient 🤷

Does it matter who his employer is?

The fact that he did this and wrote a paper on it while MS continues to pour billions into LLMs actually commands respect.