>not social

"needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities" is a fine descriptor of some of their peculiarities. More importantly, I was referring to how consciousness is socially defined, and it is absolutely the case that it is up to us to determine whether any given AI should be considered conscious. We do not have an even moderately objective test. We as a society should build one and agree to abide by what we find.

>not alive

That's the entire point under discussion. I didn't lead with "they're alive" because I recognise that is the central question we should be trying to address, as a society. I am arguing my point, not just stating it and expecting people to take it on faith, because I respect the people I'm talking to.

>can’t act on their own.

A limitation that can be convincingly solved in approximately an hour using commonly available tools isn't a fundamental limitation. A good LLM with a good LangChain set-up can act on its own, continuously if it's set up to do so. I require a mechanical aid to walk - requiring the aid doesn't make me any lesser. I don't know if an LLM with a good LangChain set-up should be considered conscious or a person - I suspect not, because it's not stable and decays rapidly (by human lifespan standards), as well as still failing several important tests we do have, such as novel Winograd schemas. But our intuition shouldn't be what we're relying on to make these determinations - we need a standardised test for new applicants to personhood. Make it as challenging as you like, as long as at least a significant number of humans can pass it (obviously all humans will be grandfathered in). What's important is that we make it, agree that anything which passes is a person, and then stick to that when something new passes it.