Raw LLM Responses

I hold that the best stance for the point where a machine should be considered sapient, and treated as a person under law, is when testing to prove it is not conscious would also be failed by the average 4 year old human being or older. You can "prove" people aren't conscious, or that a rock is conscious, depending on how you design your test. A declaration of personal consciousness is ultimately not provable. We have to treat other humans as though they have free will, real desires and hopes, and real pain, as axiomatic; the same as saying: on faith. We don't want to be so broad in our definition of a person that we start including what is definitely not conscious, but we REALLY don't want a definition of person that excludes human beings. Four years old is old enough that some of the initial hurdles of development where humans aren't really conscious or capable of self control have usually been crossed. It's a difficult line, and even if LAMDA isn't conscious, we will create a conscious AI at some point, so we really need to get our definitions figured out on this before we begin enslaving our sapient creations.