Raw LLM Responses

Wow, I hate everything this guy is doing. He is specifically using loaded language to support his theory without first establishing its validity to be able to use such terms like "understands" , he's also using an argument for one point as evidence for anothers. Like that he talks to the scientists and other engineers and agree on testing approaches, that has NOTHING to do with his claim that this system is alive. Really gross and misleading, I'm disappointed that this channel gave this person a platform. The"policy" is not why this isn't an AI, strawman argument. This really is sensationalized fake news, and it undermines your credibility reporting the news. Listen to him, he's a QA engineer, he tests systems, he doesn't design them, he didn't develop it, he didn't construct this, he's a QA engineer. This is like comparing the understanding of your vehicle between the person who designed the engine manifold and your mechanic. Honestly, I'm not even sure he's good at his job. These are stochastic systems which means they behave a bit randomly so if you were to ask many of these systems the same question five times you might get five different answers. So which answer is the artificial life, the answer that resonates best with him? It's not great when your QA guy is highly susceptible to the Forer effect. He is simply not qualified to make these statements about this system, and that's exactly why his immediate colleagues pushed back against him. I have worked with QA teams myself and while they are very intelligent and helpful with maintaining the stability of the system and identifying problems they do not understand how the system is put together fundamentally, nor do they actively develop on the system directly, they are typically segregated from the design and development process to prevent bias. I also don't understand why we should give him or creedence than the actual scientists working on this. This is like comparing the understanding the person who designed the engine manifold to your mechanic. The real cherry on top was his reference to the Turing test. Which he clearly does not understand even at the basic level and I can demonstrate that by a single quote from Alan Turing: The question as to whether machines can think is itself “too meaningless” to deserve discussion. -Alan Turing This news segment should have heeded Alan Turing's actual advice.