You literally redefined sentience again here: "don't consider them sentient" and your flag pole is "or I guess not enough because they don't feel bad about killing them".
You're drawing arbitrary goalposts for goals that aren't even relevant: At the end of the day we don't need philosophy to prove Lemoine was a schmuck.
Millions got got access to RLHF chat. We can see how they would have made his initial mistake. But following up with months of badgering and protest after being guided with kiddie gloves until he gets fired was the height of delusion.
The fact he now works on optimizing for the thing he rang the alarm on says it all.
—
Also your comment shows why guidelines aren't perfect: From your first comment you've taken the most aggrandizing borderline inflammatory tone possible without technically being un-nice.
Are little pot shots like: "So how can a subject-matter expert confidently prove that a language model isn't sentient? And please let David Chalmers know while you're at it, I hear he's keen to settle the matter."
really justified after dropping what, quite frankly, was not a well formed or even self-consistent argument?
Not everyone plays the HN backhanded-niceness game: I assume most people here are adults and can handle some directness.