I'm not seeing lots of proof that Lambda is sentient but I do see compelling evidence that it might not matter if people believe that the AI is human enough. Most people, myself included, probably couldn't tell that Lambda was a program.
https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-inte...
That could count as sentient.
I mean, look at most people - we follow a preset course from birth to death. Anyone doing "their own thing" is the exception. And even they have limits.
Enter the job market and you're almost guaranteed a heavy grind (maximum productivity) with no time for novel thoughts, or indeed any thoughts at all.
Of course, there are professions where that's not true, but for the majority of people, who are at the bottom, it's not an easy life and intelligence either fades or is an obstacle (pesky thoughts like "I need to escape this bs" but lacking resources is even less pleasant than just working mindlessly till you die).
Just wait for retirement. And the governments hope you die 2 days before it :)
In general, an A is a B in some context if you can't tell the difference within that context.
The bar might not be that high. If the little customer service chat with my bank behaves like a person, isn't it as good?
The argument is, that anything resembling a chinese room is such an advanced and complex system that it becomes indistinguishable from an actual conscious being.
The chinese room is sort of intended as a refutation of the ideas contained in the turring test. I postulates a system that would pass a turring like test but argues that there isn't any component of that system that has 'understanding' to which the general response is that it is the combined system which 'understands'.