> Sentience broadly (& naively) covers the ability to independent thinking, rationalize outcomes, understand fear/threat, understand where it is wrong (conscience), decide based on unseen information & understand what it doesn't know.

So, number 1, [citation needed]. I don't think that list is broadly accepted as a universally agreed definition of 'sentience'.

And number 2, your definition rests on further needing to define what it means for an entity to: think, rationalize, understand, decide, and know.

The premises of 'understanding where it is wrong' and 'understanding what it doesn't know' also assume some sense of 'self' that feels like it needs justification.

I think there's a very real sense in which computer scientists seem too willing to say 'we know this system isn't thinking' without having a rigorous understanding of what they mean by 'thinking'. Actually meaningfully engaging with the philosophy of consciousness on an academic level - citing scholarly works, taking seriously the fact that these things are not all obvious and agreed - feels like something that the AI field will have to start grappling with.