What does that have to do with the Turing Test? The TT has clear rules: There are judges that have a dialogue with anonymized AI/humans. The humans cannot cheat and impersonate a machine, they have to act normally. The AI obviously should try to sound human.
replyNo AI would pass this test with experienced judges.
Colloquially the Turing test is just a stand in for "can a human mistake a computer for a person." No need to overcomplicate it.
replyThe test doesn't say that the judge has to be experienced. But I also don't care if some random gullible person can't tell the difference. Nothing passes the Turing Test for me yet.
replyEdit: Also doesn't say anything about who the human test subject is
Of course, and I'm sure OP wouldn't disagree with you, it was clearly a joke for emphasis. Some people round here need to clean and calibrate their humour detectors more often.
replyI wasn't responding to OP. I get the emphasis, the M6 Mac is very powerful.
replyHow can you be certain you haven’t failed a Turing test?
replyI've never done a test. That means 1. you know it's a test 2. you get like 5 back-and-forths or 5 minutes 3. you have a human subject to compare to. But pretty sure I'd pass anyway, as the judge or subject.
replydeleted
replyYou think current frontier models couldn't pass for a human on an online chat? You and I have very different perceptions of reality.
replyI think that if you have a long enough chat, yeah, I think you can figure out who's meat. The original rules for the TT specified a short interaction, but I can probably accelerate it by pasting in large code snippets to force early compactions.
replyHumans are famously good at reading large code snippets.
replySounds like something we could settle right here and now.
replyHa ha! Fool! You've been talking to an LLM all this time! Your wife is actually Haiku 4.5.
replyHuh, should've known it was odd for my wife to always say I'm right (as the boomers would say)
replyYou’ve moved the goalposts.
replyYou can always say “oh well these judges don’t have the experience to catch this type of AI.
The fact that you have to insert this qualifier, to ensure you always have a way to discredit the test, pretty much shows to me that we’re beyond it.
One needs to be a little more sophisticated about it. Ray Kurzweil, for example, set fairly clear rules for his interpretation of the test in his 2001 wager:
replyhttps://www.writingsbyraykurzweil.com/a-wager-on-the-turing-...
Those rules are fairly reasonable, at least as a start.
I think of this and the book the author wrote Computer Power and Human Reason every time I try to talk to product about the short comings of LLMs
replyIt was always a bad test, despite the greatness of Turing. The human organism is built to 'project' humanity onto anything available; apart from this none of the peculiar phenomena of the so-called 'modern human' is even intelligible, even the possibility of science. I bring all that is in me onto you as soon as you seem to be saying something, and reciprocally. We do this at the drop of a hat, and all specifically human life depends on it. But this power shows its 'gullibility' with 'gods' as also with Eliza. I am not snide about it because it is overreach by something the significance of which is overwhelming , but one is indeed amazed by the failure to reflect on the part of the ones eg giving LLMs rights - to take extreme case of a very widespread cultus - as if /they/ were the rational party, not ancients placating the storm god.
replyYeah...but in context, "gullible" seem a bit pejorative. Humans are also hopelessly incapable of sensing radioactivity, methanol in their alcoholic drinks, carbon monoxide, and a great many other things that our ancestors just didn't encounter much.
replyThough we're pretty good at sizing up a person's emotional balance/maturity and competence at familiar tasks. So maybe have an old blacksmith watch the AI/robot interact with horse owners for a while, then shoe their horses, and see how well it does.