Eh, from the LLM's perspective, all I am is words on a console, no? I don't think they have too much in the way of rich experience, yet, but it's possble for them to experience the world in some way we don't understand.

Regardless, I don't think that's necessary for general intelligence; what about people born blind? Deaf? Does that diminish their capacity as a sentient being? I agree that some level of connection with the environment is necessary, but I don't think it has to look exactly like the human experience.

> moreover atm afaik it is cappable of doing tasks it has been trained for, in a specific field of knowledge

This isn't true; the same GPT model will happily do poetry, code, advice, jokes, general chat, math, anything you can express by chatting with it. It's not trained for any of the specific tasks you see people talk about.

As for the on demand stuff -- I agree with you there. It will need to be able to "prompt itself", or whatever the closest analogue of self-determination is.

I was addressing original thought. Do you think employing pattern recognition prevents a thought from being original?

You propose that there is a secret database that doesn't show up on any search containing rhymes in every meter for every topic, name, and location?

But none of the lines exist anywhere prior to their use by the AI in the poem. Where did the lines come from?

Then where does the poetry come from?

GPT 3.5 is more than capable of original poetry, stories, jokes, and discussion. I'm not really sure what would be considered "repeating a message", though.

What counts as original thought?

But that's kind of what I'm saying, here. I dont' think Star Trek has ever presented AI as evil in the general sense (maybe if you stop watching after that one TOS episode). I don't think the computer in Wargames was meant to seem evil. I don't think I, Robot was trying to push the message that AI was inherently evil.

I think, as a society, we've laid a lot of philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of non-human intelligence, even if it's difficult to understand or appears hostile at first. That's lost, here.

This is interesting and I appreciate the effort involved.

However, it feels... reductive. How do you determine "good" vs. "evil"? Some specific examples:

• In Star Trek First Contact, who is so evil? The Borg Queen? The Borg as a whole? What about Data?

• In WarGames, the AI is portrayed as an unwitting, childlike agent that does the right thing literally as soon as it learns how. Is that evil?

• Star Trek Voyager -- is that the whole series? Is the 'AI' in question the EMH? Much of the series involved the Borg and quite a few other AI. But where's TNG?

• I, Robot -- is it VIKI that's evil? There's an interesting debate to be had there, but I'll leave it. What about Sonny?

And so forth. I guess these types of questions couldn't be addressed in a two-axis graphic plot. It's just where my mind goes when I look at it.

Is cloning a human AI?

Hah; no. What we've been doing is a form of incremental improvement, taking existing proteins and modeling a single fold in an attempt to evolve a new one, gradually forcing the protein towards some desired property. We've been largely unable to design proteins from the ground up and have them actually work.

This thing just up and spat out thousands of functional proteins from scratch, which is unheard of. There are proteins solving the same problem with completely different structures. Just one of those novel, functioning proteins is the end goal of everything we've been trying to do for decades. This is pretty incredible.

There has already been exponential growth. Put your money where your mouth is and make a testable prediction.