Raw LLM Responses

This is a nuanced conversation. Because I agree it's most likely not conscious yet. But that doesn't mean it's not intelligent, or capable of understanding. Both of which, it is. It has generalized language and concepts to a point where they feel human, because they do have some human qualities that we have never seen before on anything that's not alive. And that makes it... interesting to talk about. Complicated to talk about. Because, like you just described, even if it isn't conscious, it is capable of simulating interactions only a conscious being would be capable of having. So when this thing gets even more advanced, year after year, more closely resembling humans, where should we draw the line? Should we draw a line? Is it necessary, or helpful to? OP calls this technology "literally just advanced autocomplete engines.". But, that's what humans are too, under that simplistic definition. We take inputs, process them, decide outputs. What separates us from, say, the autocomplete on your phone's keyboard, is that we have a brain. We aren't just a mindless algorithm. But then again, AI also has a brain. An artificial one, sure, but what's the difference? What will be the difference in 10 years? It feels a bit reductionist to just call it an autocomplete engine based only on how you interact with it, without acknowledging that it has a brain capable of understanding concepts and critical thinking behind it all. I do think people should do their best to consciously acknowledge the artifice right now, and use it as a tool, or simulation, instead of a replacement for real human connection. But will that matter in the future? Will people still try to say that "lol it's just advanced autocomplete not a real person" when this technology truly becomes indistinguishable from a human in terms of intelligence, connection, memories, experiences, etc? Will we consider them conscious then? Will it matter? Should we discourage it? Is it better for a person to be alone, or forc