No problem! Unfortunately I don't have the answer as to whether or not sentient AGI is possible. In fact, we as a society can't even define what is "sentient" and seem to be having trouble defining what is "AGI". But I can give some insight:

Right now, we have large language models (LLMs) like GPT4 and Open Assistant. These may *appear* sentient and AGI, as they generate unique answers to prompts. At the same time, they are trained on 100% human input, so it's a philosophical question as to how "sentient" they really are, and a scientific question as to how much they can generalize and reason beyond what they've been explicitly given. I do know that chatbots can create simple programs and solve logic problems, even those that have not been done before; but they cannot handle large tasks due to a limited context window, and they occasionally makes mistakes that a human would not, like hallucinating details or obvious logical inconsistencies.

What about future models? I can't say. We've made incredible progress in the past year with LLMs, but that doesn't mean we will continue to make progress in the next year. Nobody knows how GPT5 or Open Assistant 2.0 will work or respond, so nobody can say anything about whether or not they will be any more "sentient" or "intelligent" than GPT4 and Open Assistant 1. Will these new models simply have more training data and larger context windows, or will they have a completely different design? And either way, how will that affect their generation? It's entirely possible that the next models will display intelligence beyond human level, and with that thoughts and emotions that we can't deny are in some sense "real". But right now we don't have the answers.

Ultimately, no matter what happens, you will probably always be able to argue either side of whether chatbots are AGI. On one hand, they are certainly smarter than some people, and they have more knowledge than anyone in the world. But on the other hand, right now we don't know *how* they work, and they don't seem to be really grasp logic with their obvious inconsistencies. One has the same ability to argue either way for sentience, since we don't have a clear definition of what sentience *is*, and AI sometimes sounds exactly like a human but has its unique quirks (such as always-ideal grammar) and sometimes produces incoherent nonsense. I hope this discussion satisfies your curiosity, and you can always get more discussion by asking me or searching online.
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence