Thank you for reading it and providing notes.
> If you are saying sentience is 'larger' or different to intelligence then I'd argue you are defining it,
I suppose it's more of a character definition rather the definition of thing itself, it makes sense? Like how you would say Green is not Red or darkness is absence of light.
> No big name in AI academia or philosophy of mind seems to have made a strong claim about sentience in AI that we currently have. A lot of laymen have made claims, without defining sentience, or consciousness
I think for me this shouldn't prevent us from making qualitative delineation between these things without having to resort to waiting for a full definition for these things to be carved out. As to why should we even bother making this distinction, I think it's to have some clarity on things like morality when talking about these machines which can replicate with surprising fidelity the only means we have of expressing our inner world.
> This exists. It is called Cognitive Studies
Thank you for pointing me to this direction. I still feel there is something lacking? I can't put my finger on what it is, like just intelligence has to be seen independently as a mechanical field instead of clubbing it with other things. Though it might be a recency bias of having written this article.
> it's an emergent property based on size of the network of connections and underlying training data (be that human sensory input or machine vectors). Trim an LLM down and you won't see 'intelligence' disappear at a binary boundary, it'll degrade gradually to various different points of usability.
I thought about and continue to think about this. Regarding humans there is still open discussion on are babies conscious https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/05/science/consciousness-bra...
> If you are saying sentience is 'larger' or different to intelligence then I'd argue you are defining it,
I suppose it's more of a character definition rather the definition of thing itself, it makes sense? Like how you would say Green is not Red or darkness is absence of light.
> No big name in AI academia or philosophy of mind seems to have made a strong claim about sentience in AI that we currently have. A lot of laymen have made claims, without defining sentience, or consciousness
I think for me this shouldn't prevent us from making qualitative delineation between these things without having to resort to waiting for a full definition for these things to be carved out. As to why should we even bother making this distinction, I think it's to have some clarity on things like morality when talking about these machines which can replicate with surprising fidelity the only means we have of expressing our inner world.
> This exists. It is called Cognitive Studies
Thank you for pointing me to this direction. I still feel there is something lacking? I can't put my finger on what it is, like just intelligence has to be seen independently as a mechanical field instead of clubbing it with other things. Though it might be a recency bias of having written this article.
> it's an emergent property based on size of the network of connections and underlying training data (be that human sensory input or machine vectors). Trim an LLM down and you won't see 'intelligence' disappear at a binary boundary, it'll degrade gradually to various different points of usability.
I thought about and continue to think about this. Regarding humans there is still open discussion on are babies conscious https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/05/science/consciousness-bra...