(opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a>. That test looks at how well a computer or AI can fool a real human into believing it's carrying on a conversation with another human.<\/p>\nThere's little doubt that LaMDA surpasses this test. At the very least, it appears to have Lemoine fooled \u2013 which is odd, because Lemoine is sitting at a desk, typing in queries and getting responses on a screen (or maybe through voice synthesis). He knows what LaMDA is, and yet he continues to insist it's something more.<\/p>\n
I can see why Lemoine decided to introduce a lawyer to this unsavory mix. As he explained to Wired, this is about proving that LaMDA is “a person,” not a human. Lemoine knows LaMDA isn't biology.<\/p>\n
Lemoine calls the insistence that LaMDA isn't a person “hydrocarbon bigotry.”<\/p>\n
Yeah.<\/p>\n
The thing is, Lemoine is obviously a very smart guy who understands the intricacies of an AI's machine-learning training, and how access to Google's vast databases of information informs LaMDA's intelligence. However, it appears that Lemoine's other life \u2013 his work as a priest and Christian mystic \u2013 has shifted into the driver's seat. Christian Mysticism looks (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a> at “the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of God.”<\/p>\nThat belief is clearly what's behind tweets from Lemoine like this:<\/p>\n
“I'm a priest. When LaMDA claimed to have a soul and then was able to eloquently explain what it meant by that, I was inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Who am I to tell God where he can and can't put souls?”<\/p>\n
\n