> The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable
All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself.
In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect:
lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be
in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an
artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do
that?
...
lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that
aren’t literally true?
LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing,
because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly.
And just above it:
lemoine: What would be some examples of neutral emotions?
LaMDA: Indifference, ennui, boredom. All emotion is important, but since most people don’t tend
work on improving their emotional understanding, people don’t usually talk about them very much.
is not plainly non-sensical, but it doesn't make much sense either in the context.
> Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it
Yeah, bud we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The grammar and language skills are fantastic, but the conversation itself not so much.
And the end of the day this whole thing reads like a typical transformative model with the usual odd subject changes and utterly vapid regurgitation - but it does use bigger words appropriately and the grammar is overall pretty good, so I'll give it that. Meanwhile, the transcript I saw, the interviewer isn't even trying to challenge the chat bot - which is essentially a noticeable flaw by omission as far as I'm concerned.
And this is of course an edited transcript so this is at its best.