> All they do is match patterns, draw from massive statistical databases of human language. The patterns might be cool, but language these systems utter doesn’t actually mean anything at all. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean that these systems are sentient.
That doesn't actually convince of me of much. That could apply to me or you just the same.
The author just throws claims in the air without any proof. "To be sentient is to be aware of yourself in the world; LaMDA simply isn’t. It’s just an illusion". How do we know that this?
Instead of this angle, I think a much easier argument to make is that humans by nature cannot be commanded, where as LaMDA clearly can. If you want to have a deep philosophical conversation with me, I might ignore you, or maybe I'll say it's too much thinking for me right now. Or any other response. But if you ask LaMDA a question it will always respond to it. And on the flip side LaMDA isn't gonna text you out of the blue.
To me, this is what convinces me that LaMDA is not sentient. Sentient beings have personalities and quirks and do not do whatever you ask them to do.