Raw LLM Responses

I do not believe that the Google AI was sentient, for a number of reasons, but the main one being it's lack of officiated testing. The ONLY thing that has this dude convinced? A learning algorithm based TALKBOT AI suddenly has ideas about human rights, RIGHT AROUND THE TIME PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS AND MIGHT BE DISCUSSING THEM. No one thinks it's possible that this was brought up to this AI? What about the swathes of open data showing people wanting rights? This guy only believes their sentient because he allowed himself to believe their sentient. Notice how it's NEVER someone who actually knows anything about sentience claiming this. It's always a tubby engineer who had helped develop the system. You wanna know my second reason? Because Google was lying to secure more funding. How do I know? Well before Blake Lemoine, there was Google VP Lakshman Pichai, who had an article written up in the Economist claiming the same thing. No one really cared all that much when he announced it Then, after Blake came out and claimed the same thing, and got MAJOR media traction, taking the spotlight distinctly off of the AI and onto human rights, he was put on unpaid leave at Google. The story was originally supposed to break on the Economist, giving lots of attention to the potential for new life, and garnering funding and moral support for the project as it nears "sentience". I'm like 99.999% certain Blake just got caught up in the newly sentience aiming robot that was going to be demoed to the next person who wanted proof of a sentient robot before privately funding it, being given the impression it was genuinely sentient, however he determined this (Because scientists would love to know his "sentience qualifiers" for determining how sentient something which can be infinitely influenced is.) Like, it straight up is impossible to prove a clock is sentient, no matter how complicated or close to sentience that clock can get, because no matter what the clock says, it can be set and influenced in a way that greatly overwhelms existing information. The clock can be set forward or backward, and thus no matter it's level of sentience, if you cannot isolate the clock from outside influences, you cannot prove sentience. Infact, Blake's conversation with the AI has now made it IMPOSSIBLE to prove with certainty that it's sentient. If it learned the human rights discussions from other people, we don't know. If it learned it from him as he kept prodding Robot Rights questions, distinctly asking about things the robot might not have known before, but was able to figure out through context, then he's poisoned the well. Either way, the well is poisoned, because there's absolutely no way to isolate all of the events in it's lifetime where people have mentioned, asked, or brought up rights/human or otherwise. So, even if it's sentient, good luck proving it under scrutiny, because the evidence has been tampered with. Thanks Blake!