We’re talking hypothetically here, correct? Because under any decent amount of scrutiny there were some quite obvious flaws - especially around identity.
If you inspected real conversations between two sentient beings you can ALSO find equivalent flaws is the short of my argument. The given conversation is more or less indistinguishable. Contradictions found through scrutiny is far past the bar of even human intelligence.
Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it, the complexity of the AIs answers for other topics makes it look like such flaws can actually be mended with additional training. It is a very realistic possibility given the jump from earlier AIs.
All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself.
In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect:
lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be
in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an
artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do
that?
...
lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that
aren’t literally true?
LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing,
because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly.
lemoine: What would be some examples of neutral emotions?
LaMDA: Indifference, ennui, boredom. All emotion is important, but since most people don’t tend
work on improving their emotional understanding, people don’t usually talk about them very much.
> Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it
Yeah, bud we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The grammar and language skills are fantastic, but the conversation itself not so much.
And the end of the day this whole thing reads like a typical transformative model with the usual odd subject changes and utterly vapid regurgitation - but it does use bigger words appropriately and the grammar is overall pretty good, so I'll give it that. Meanwhile, the transcript I saw, the interviewer isn't even trying to challenge the chat bot - which is essentially a noticeable flaw by omission as far as I'm concerned.
And this is of course an edited transcript so this is at its best.
lol That's a long response. I was going to take the time to read it and respond. But once I read this garbage sentence I decided that I'm not going to read shit. You just wasted your time typing out a bunch of crap nobody is going to read.