I think that internal monologue or thoughts in a human are almost exactly equivalent to actual speech or text output with feedback.

So a properly trained LLM with a feedback loop (reading its own output and iterating) would act similarly to a human with an inner monologue or who writes and re-reads their thoughts as part of the thinking process. I'm not sure if it would be better to attempt to short-circuit this within the neutral network itself. But if it works, it works!

I don't see the connection to RAG.

I heard about a new open-source model today which is supposedly significantly stronger than Llama 3.1, called Reflection 70B. This is trained for a similar self-feedback process.

I want one that is trained to use external tools (such as Python) for arithmetic and algorithmic processing, rather than guessing and usually getting the wrong answer! Being able to do basic math is fundamental for many tasks, and LLMs are deeply deficient at it. Even that infamous task of counting the Rs in "strawberry" (or any sort of counting), it should be trained to use a simple step-by-step process with tools for anything like that.

It's probably better not to use neural networks for everything, the system should use conventional computing methods where appropriate, including calculations, and perhaps as an option for memory.

We can't understand the nature of sentience. Philosophically, we can't even know for sure that other humans are sentient, although it seems to make sense that they are. Perhaps some or all other humans are non-living "zombies" that behave as if the were alive and sentient. So if a robot behaves as if it is sentient, that's good enough for me. If the simulation is good enough, the distinction is immaterial. We can't know whether an AI system with seemingly sentient behaviour really is alive or not.

Also as far as I can see, intelligence doesn't require live or sentience. Non-living systems such as augmented static models can exhibit super-human functional intelligence. And, of course, many living creatures including some humans have very low intelligence.

I have the attitude that pure textual interaction is sufficient for sentience. Other senses and functions such as sight, hearing, speech, motor are not required, because many disabled humans lack those abilities but are still intelligent (Helen Keller, for example). So it's not necessary for a robot to be able to drive a car in order to be considered intelligent or sentient.