Simplistic criteria like provenance (factory or evolution) and anatomy (homology to humans) were never appropriate; they were heuristics suitable only for past limitations.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Verbal reports, homology of structure or materials, phylogenetic provenance are all insufficient to make dependable conclusions across the space of possible agents.claim0.814
  Summary assertion that traditional evidence fails for novel agents.
• Verbal reports, homology, and phylogenetic provenance are insufficient to determine sentience in unconventional agents.claim0.800
  Core claim: Turing test and brain homology fail for synthetic, AI, and radically non-human agents; new frameworks required.
• Smith & Boyd (1991) criteria are irrelevant across the vast majority of the space of possible agents.claim0.796
  Dismissal of earlier criteria as too narrow.
• Verbal reports (the Turing Test) and homology to human brains are utterly inadequate criteria for assessing the status of novel, unconventional agents that offer no familiar touchstone of phylogeny or anatomy.claim0.795
  Core claim that standard criteria fail for novel agents.
• We never allowed the simple-minded pure efficiency argument to dictate, since this would have killed the structure.quote0.795
  Explicit rejection of efficiency-only thinking in favor of life-preserving design.
• Contingent properties like composition, origin, or similarity to human brains should not define ethical consideration for novel agents.claim0.794
  Ethics must be based on empirically-determined cognitive properties (goals, preferences, concerns) rather than parochial markers.
• We must develop principled approaches to evaluating the sentience of (and thus, our responsibility to) beings of unfamiliar provenance and composition.claim0.790
  Call to action for new frameworks.
• For the first time in modern history, ways of thinking are available that make the criteria for 'living' potentially sharable and actually shared.claim0.787
  Asserts that the theoretical foundation laid out in the four books provides a public quality standard for sequences.