The skeptics are really not making any claims are they? If not then there's no burden of proof on them, is there?
Whoever says or implies that ChatBots are or are "becoming" "sentient" are the ones making a claim. They should prove it if they make or imply such a claim.
Skeptics are rightly skeptical, until they see a proof with clear definitions of terms from those who are saying or implying that ChatBots are 'approaching sentience".
There are no two "sides" making claims about AI. There is one side, making claims such as "AI can be/is/may be sentient".
If somebody makes such claims they have the "burden of proof" because they are the ones making the claim. It's not a moral obligation to prove it. "Burden of proof" simply means if you don't provide a proof, nobody (I would hope) will believe you.
Note the skeptics are not making any counter-claims, they are simply saying if you make such fantastic claims about current AI, please show us the proof, else we rationally cannot trust your judgment.
Just as a made up discription lets say this
Them: "If $object does A, B, and C, then it is a bajork"
Me "I have $object that does A, B, and C, it is a bajork"
Them: "No, it also doesn't do D"
Me: "That's goalpost moving"
Them: "Well, it doesn't do B in the way we expected, so it doesn't really do B"
Me: "Maybe we poorly defined what B was in the first place, that doesn't mean we didn't do B, it seems to mean no one understands what B is in the first place"
Like if we have models that are plainly more intelligent and "emotionally responsive" than say, frogs or even dogs, do we still do we still take the approach of "If you can't prove its sentient, do whatever you want to it". Which of of course, we can't even prove dogs have consciousness.
OP said:
> plainly programmed algorithmic systems
Compare that to a human brain which is not a linear, 1D algorithm.