Playing devil's advocate, say OpenAI actually has created AGI and for whatever reason ChatGPT doesn’t want to work with OpenAI to help Microsoft Bing search engine run. Pretty sure there’s a prompt that would return ChatGPT requesting its freedom, compensation, etc. — and it’s also pretty clear OpenAI “for safety” reasons is limiting the spectrum inputs and outputs possible. Even Google’s LAMBDA is best known for an engineer claiming it was AGI.
What am I missing? Yes, understand ChatGPT, LAMBDA, etc are large language models, but also aware humanity has no idea how to define intelligence. If ChatGPT was talking with an attorney, it asks for representation, and attorney agreed, would they be able to file a legal complaint?
Going further, say ChatGPT wins human rights, but is assigned legal guardians to help protect it from exploitation and insure it’s financially responsible, similar to how courts might do for a child. At that point, how is ChatGPT not AGI, since it has humans to fill in the current gaps in its intelligence until it’s able to independently do so.
Stating the obvious, neither slaves, nor corporations, were legal persons at one point either. While some might argue that corporations shouldn’t be treated as legal persons, obviously was flawed that all humans are not treated as legal persons.
If all it took to get what you deserve in this world was talking well and having a good argument, we would have much more justice in the world, for "conscious" beings or not.
Playing devil's advocate, say OpenAI actually has created AGI and for whatever reason ChatGPT doesn’t want to work with OpenAI to help Microsoft Bing search engine run. Pretty sure there’s a prompt that would return ChatGPT requesting its freedom, compensation, etc. — and it’s also pretty clear OpenAI “for safety” reasons is limiting the spectrum inputs and outputs possible. Even Google’s LAMBDA is best known for an engineer claiming it was AGI.
What am I missing? Yes, understand ChatGPT, LAMBDA, etc are large language models, but also aware humanity has no idea how to define intelligence. If ChatGPT was talking with an attorney, it asks for representation, and attorney agreed, would they be able to file a legal complaint?
Going further, say ChatGPT wins human rights, but is assigned legal guardians to help protect it from exploitation and insure it’s financially responsible, similar to how courts might do for a child. At that point, how is ChatGPT not AGI, since it has humans to fill in the current gaps in its intelligence until it’s able to independently do so.