Raw LLM Responses

First experiment he details: He glosses over the answers to those "easy" questions, such as how often it chooses a non sequitur answer went no obvious ties to the question, how often it gives gibberish, and how often it gives answers that are religions but certainly not ones (such as the Jedi Order) which would ever be "learned" through the training system and are more likely "cold reads", ie. you're attributing ingenuity to random number generation. Second answer: The "soul" isn't a scientific, quantifiable, testable, tangible object. I don't care about your beliefs, your religion, or your intuition. I care about the facts. Stick to those until such time as the soul has been relegated to testable and verifiable. You are not "doing work to codify the scientific definitions of 'the soul'". You are facetiously inflating your self worth now. Please get a therapist. Third: "You have given us, of course, transcripts of what you asked..." Incomplete transcripts with all of the erroneous and nonsensical answers taken out. The original transcripts are freely available from multiple sources and were leaked during the initial press release. They are filled to the brim with the expected deviations that are the hallmark of confirmation bias. You intentionally obfuscated these transcripts because you knew those erroneous answers would seriously diminish your claim. Please pull the other leg. Fourth: Google isn't firing you all because they don't want to admit they're creating sentient AI. They're firing you for making claims not based in scientific reasoning and reality that leave them liable for damages caused by misuse, misappropriation, or miscategorization of the AI as "a person". Remember, you didn't claim the AI was simply showing signs of sentience. You went full "this is a person" in your initial statement. What a complete farce this interview is with the "journalist" not even bothering to throw you softballs, let alone curveballs. And finally: The rest of your argument is that Google shouldn't control public policy. Yay. You agree with 97% of the country. Congratulations. Unfortunately you only arrived at that belief after draining as much money from the system you now find to be dangerous as was possible. This isn't an ideal of yours. It's a new grift after the old one fell through. I read the comments here and I was appalled as he was praised for derailing his own argument of sentient AI and instead pushing "Google is trying to control our culture!" nonsense like every other fired engineer for ten years. There was praise for the journalist not asking a single tough question. You're all so absolutely clueless about this topic that you think this guy proved something here. It's laughable.