>However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point.

>Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of neurons firing in sequence to emulate sentience.

Yes, this is something I've been wondering about.

My understanding is that there is a tendency in AI research for the goalposts to be constantly moved back; when a target is met, its importance in achieving the long-term goals of research (achieving general artificial intelligence) is diminished.

To put another way, if we showed AI researchers in 1970 a computer that can beat the best human chess grandmasters, or understand and attempt to respond to a spoken voice question in a wide range of subjects (or even simple tasks, such as my being able to speak "Hey Siri, unlock lobby" with a phone in my pocket, and have it unlock the lobby door as I walk up to it), they would be certain that general AI had been achieved. Would they be wrong? Or are we underestimating what such accomplishments mean for the field?