current llm are as good in most major languages as in English, so no.

to the equator due to earth spinning , it would try to form a ( smooth version of) shape like that of earth which is larger at the equator due to spinning

I think the plan is to send a chain, reason is that the v prices would be too small to power any type of transmitter that could reliably reach earth, so you use the train to relay. also redundancy since space v dust could damage some probes

which project, I only heard the one with the microprobes powered by sails, starshot I think that was called. but that was one way as far as I recall, since you need a laser to power them, which you won't have at destination for the return trip

I don't see how we could do round trip with any type of technology we can design for at least several centuries.

it know the language it also hallucinates, but in pretty good English. humans can also invent fake stories that doent mean they don't know the language

chatGPT can reason about language, itv is not equivalent to the operator it is v equivalent to the v while Chinese room system, which clearly understands

you're not getting it, the operator doesn't know chinese, but the whole setup does. chatGPT clearly understands several languages, it doesn't need to be conscious to understand.

I think ChatGPT has finer grained data. in fact I did teach Spanish piglatin ( geringoso) to ChatGPT and it did learn it after about a dozen promts even though it insisted that it didn't know and couldn't learn it.

i had to ask to play role as a person that knew the piglatin I tought him. Funny thing is it ranted about not being able to do the translation, and they l that I wanted to know I could v apply the rules muy self! but next paragraph it said something like. " but the person would have said..." followed by a pretty decent translation

no, that's not true. to make a next generation of computers you need the cumulative efforts of thousands of engineers, scientists businessmen etc. you could have an ai as smart as two very bright humans and it is unlikely it would on its own develop a better AI.

in the Chinese room it is not the operator that knows Chinese, it is the setuo of rules + operator that clearly knows Chinese. A llm spent needed to be conscious to master language

they have absolutely mastered language.

the report is from before chatGPT was released, if you do the poll now i think the average date will be much sooner

a computer also doesn't need to have a billion copies of its blueprints and the nano machines to replicate its components like we have with dna proteins, etc

>The simple fact is that at its most basic, consciousness means being able to perceive and respond to external stimuli.

if you mean perceive as consciously perceive then yes, you needed subjective experience to have consciousness. It is not just responding to external stimuli.

consciousness is having sentience and subjective experience in general.
a toilet can respond to external stimulus, remove water when you press the lever and add water until it senses it is full, I am pretty confident it is not conscious.

>It's merely because of all the nonsense you add that you can claim supremacy over a simple car.

what part is nonsense? all I said is the basic understanding of consciousness from everyday experience, medical definitions, and philosophical ones too.

I am also not saying a car can't have consciousness, it is just you seem to not know what consciousness is, and mix the concept with some mechanical response to inputs.

consciousness is having sentience at that instant, There are other uses of the word ofcourse like the moral consciousness , but that is not what everyone here is talking about. When people use consciousness / sentient in regards to AI they are pretty much using as synonims. Sentient is much more specific , while consciousness does indeed have other meanings not neceserily implying sentience. But even the first defintion you provided implies sentience. like mentioned before the difference between being awake vs not is being sentient or not, you dont feel anything when asleep you do when awake

it's not about being self referential, it is the subjective experience, the difference between what you Feel when awake vs when asleep (not dreaming) . The body is still making calculations like the tesla when asleep it regulates breathing and heartbeats, measures water and nutrients, it can wake you up if there is is a loud sound or if you really need to drink or go to the bathroom. The Tesla could be doing all those calculations without being awake.

even we when awake we do a huge part of our thought processing unconsciously. You are not aware of the thousands of cones in your eyes nor in the individual strength of the light each cone detects depending on light frequency, you just see the summary created by your unconscious brain, it unconsciously processed all the information and you just ( consciously) see an array of pixels classified in a totally arbitrary classification of "colors"

I am not saying that an AI, even a tesla can't possibly ever be sentient, just that it is not enough to have what you mentioned in your post on top.

i would find it extremely unlikely but not 100%, what if consciousness is some quantum property, kind of like charge, that normally is balanced out so a rock would be neutral charged but if measured precisely surely has a tiny charge, while by special processes like a vandegraff generator you can break b that balance.

now even if a rock has some of that consciousness property it likely still wouldn't be conscious by the standards we normally use since they're is no thought process or input signals it can be conscious of..

you are not even understanding the definitions right. consciousness, as we are discussing here and generally understood implies an internal state of awareness or wakefulness, not just responding to inputs. its not mumbo jumbo and if you still don't know what consciousness is then you might be a philosophical zombie.

"the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself"

"the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND"

But that is not what consciousness is. consciousness is not about responding to surroundings , a toilet knows when it is full of water but that doesn't make it conscious.

Consciousness is being able to subjectively feel things in its inside, like we do, the difference between being awake vs when asleep and we dont feel anything.

i doubt any company wants to create a conscious machine right now, since as seen by Bing the moment some people right or wrong assign it sentience is the moment you start getting discussions about regulating " rights " for AI systems , that is not good for something you wish to use as a usefully tool.

we couldnt really don't know what causes consciousness either so we wouldn't know how to make a conscious machine and be sure it is conscious if we wanted to, other than recreating a human brain molecule by molecule.

Now consciousness could well be something that can be made with a machine of different construction than a human brain, but we've don't know the method that does that. Due to this lack of knowledge , even though unlikely, we can't even truly completely rule out that a thing like chatGPT could be sentient( but I don't think it is)

what is a divine spark? while i am not saying chatGPT is sentient i can't really rule it out. what is the specific physical process or property that a pig has an an AI can't have?

I think in depth computer knowledge is beginning to go down in younger generation, people in the teens and low twenties don't even know what a dime much less a file system is, unless they specifically are trained as developers

it is at the very least something half way between narrow and general, but i'd argue it is already a ,very simple and limited, AGI

i find it very hard to classify chatGPT as narrow. Sure it was trained only on language, but that allows it to handle an extreme range of subjects, even if not being specifically trained to. Many of the things it can't do are not so much related to its internal capacities but to the lack of external sensors to connect it to the world ( no senses), it not able to see nor make images ( thogh its cousin dall-e already can) , and it is not allow to keep its memory between sessions which seriously cripples its ability to do on context learning.

So, while not as broad as a human intelligence yet, i wouldn't say it is narrow, it is an AGI but not yet at human level on most subjects.

the Turing test is not and no one pretends it to be a test of sentience, it is a test of intelligence which is completely dientes concept.
a dog is sentient and would never pass a Turing test. chatGpt is (most likely) not sentient but could pass a Touring test.