No, that isn't a sufficient definition because it is incapable of differentiating between sentience and evolutionarily habituated survival instincts that all life forms have.
This is just silly.
This is just silly.
Isn't it our job as a sentient, evolved species, to ensure we do no harm to other sentient species?
And the only way we can begin to consider doing that is if we figure out a way to classify them?
> 7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation and sensitisation
square with "evolutionarily habituated survival instincts"?
What definition would you use instead?
But LLMs (today) don't fulfill criterion #7: After training is completed, the model is fixed, so there is no more learning going on. #6 would also be hard to map to an LLM.
The legal draft did not in any way either specify an AUTONOMOUS process, nor did it even specify any type of localized "learning" in terms of memory aggregation.
A discerning reader might notice that this begins to wade into very challenging philosophical questions.
Ding, ding, ding! You figured it out!
Presumably including us. So are we also not sentient?