The Future of Artificial Intelligence: Can machines become sentient (self-aware)

It won't happen in my lifetime, or in yours.I think it would be a fair assessment of the current state of the art, to say that the experts haven't a clue how to do this.So we now have a computer as top chess player. Yet, as almost anybody admits, the way it plays chess is not anything like the way that people play chess.Back in 1950, when Turing wrote his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" it was thought that a real thinking computer was just around the corner. All we needed were computer a little faster and with a little more memory than were available.Today people are saying that all we need are computers that are a little faster and with a little more memory.In 100 years time, people will be saying that all we need are computers that are a little faster and with a little more memory. Or maybe it will eventually dawn on people, that the problem is not a lack of computing power.Sorry to be a naysayer. I am just giving my honest assessment of the evidence of progress. And, honestly, we have not made any progress. The things that have been puzzles throughout 2,000 years of philosophy of mind are still puzzles today. All the computer has done, is provide us with a new metaphor in which to express those ancient puzzles.

We still cannot fly. We had to change the meaning of "fly" to something that we can do, before we were able to fly. In the old sense, flying the way birds do it - we cannot do that.Can we change the meaning of "sentience" to something that computers can do? Presumably we can, if we find that useful.Let me respond in the form of a few questions:
1: Could we, in principle, build an artificially sentient system?
My answer - yes, sure. I don't see anything magical going on.2: Is that principle computation?
My answer - no. I might be part of a small minority there, though I sometimes suspect that the majority of mathematicians and computer scientists are actually very skeptical of AI but choose not to engage in the public debates.3: Is that principle intentionality (the issue that John Searle attempted to raise in his "Chinese Room" argument).
My answer - no, though that might at least vaguely point in the right direction. With the last two answers, I am probably a minority of one.4: Is it even worth doing?
My answer - no. If it were easy to do, it would be worth doing for what we would learn in the attempt. However, it is going to turn out to be very hard, perhaps prohibitively hard. So there is no real payoff for building an artificially sentient being. Beside, the old fashioned way is more fun. I have at least given a bit more detail of my thinking above.AI, as currently done, is mostly an attempt to automate epistemology (the "theory of knowledge" from philosophy).
Epistemology is mostly nonsense.

There would be a lot of anger from the religious right, perhaps even an attempt to assassinate the scientists involved. It would call into question their idea of a spiritual soul.Beyond that, it gets pretty hard to guess what would result.

Yes, it is. That's just my opinion, of course. It is actually a controversial issue. Some people believe it is an epiphenomenom (a mere side effect of no practical use). That's a lot harder to say. We can't even compare two humans, so how could we compare a human and a whale? IMO, sentience is not an end in itself. Rather, it is part of the way we function. What is distinct about humans, say compared to elephants, is the extent to which we form large interactive social groups. A substantial part of our cognitive abilities are a component of that social adaptation.

Yes, quite right. A lot of what we see as human progress is the result of people working together cooperatively to achieve what could not be done individually. And that is what culture does for us.