It is widely acknowledged that many modern AI chat bots can indeed pass the Turing test as well as an actual human, maybe even better.
So the new problem is that something is wrong with the Turing test, and we need to come up with something better.
Because nobody sensible recognize current state of AI to be anywhere near strong AI.
Or maybe we are performing the Turing test wrong? It can probably not be called a proper Turing test, unless it’s someone particularly skilled in it that performs it. Someone able to detect the answers without actual human experience behind them.
We know AI can have very basic problems, like not being able to count the number of “r” in strawberry correctly, and act very confused about it when it’s explained that there are 3, and asked to spell the word out and count them.
If the AI had consciousness and comparable intelligence to a normal human, such banal things should not confuse the AI.
So we need to understand the limitations better, to be better at testing them.
I may be an ai. I read that as ‘not being able to count to the number r in strawberry’ and I immediately wondered how you would do that.
Then I realized that might be the perfect thing to start training it on by coming up with things like that in posts, as though that were a perfectly human thing to know how to do.
The latest popular trick that they couldn’t figure out was telling it that you wanted your car washed, and asking if you should drive or walk to the car wash that was just down the street. The top end models can figure it out now, but the last set really thought it was a great idea to walk when the distance was so short.
Most AI do not have senses, right? If it can only predict rather than hold concrete examples as abstract ones and manipulate them in its head then I don’t think it’s thinking in the way a biological species does.
Nope, there’s nothing wrong with the test. It wasn’t designed to test if it was “strong AI” or anything like that, it was designed to answer the question “Can machines think?” and at this point, the clear answer is yes they can.
Are they perfect? No. Can you trip them up? Yes.
Are both of those previous answers also true for humans? Yes.
There’s plenty of humans that would struggle with counting the number of “r” in Strawberry, and most models are well past that level of failure. The current ones even recommend you drive to the car wash even if it’s only 50 feet down the road.
Nope, there’s nothing wrong with the test. It wasn’t designed to test if it was “strong AI”
That was EXACTLY what it was designed for, the argument being that if it is indistinguishably from a human, it has human like consciousness. That’s way beyond thinking.
Computers are “thinking” routinely. Chess programs that have existed since the 80’s are already proof of that.
I’m not so sure that he would. The whole thing is rather moot though because thinking isn’t a yes or no question.
A fun quote I heard previously, was from someone involved in making bear proof garbage bins stating that there were challenges because there’s a significant overlap between the dumbest humans and the smartest bears.
It is widely acknowledged that many modern AI chat bots can indeed pass the Turing test as well as an actual human, maybe even better.
So the new problem is that something is wrong with the Turing test, and we need to come up with something better.
Because nobody sensible recognize current state of AI to be anywhere near strong AI.
Or maybe we are performing the Turing test wrong? It can probably not be called a proper Turing test, unless it’s someone particularly skilled in it that performs it. Someone able to detect the answers without actual human experience behind them.
We know AI can have very basic problems, like not being able to count the number of “r” in strawberry correctly, and act very confused about it when it’s explained that there are 3, and asked to spell the word out and count them.
If the AI had consciousness and comparable intelligence to a normal human, such banal things should not confuse the AI.
So we need to understand the limitations better, to be better at testing them.
So, the Turing test is the AI equivalent of the Bechdel test?
Its an insanely low bar to clear, and many either treat it like a trophy, or still cant even manage that much?
I may be an ai. I read that as ‘not being able to count to the number r in strawberry’ and I immediately wondered how you would do that.
Then I realized that might be the perfect thing to start training it on by coming up with things like that in posts, as though that were a perfectly human thing to know how to do.
The latest popular trick that they couldn’t figure out was telling it that you wanted your car washed, and asking if you should drive or walk to the car wash that was just down the street. The top end models can figure it out now, but the last set really thought it was a great idea to walk when the distance was so short.
Most AI do not have senses, right? If it can only predict rather than hold concrete examples as abstract ones and manipulate them in its head then I don’t think it’s thinking in the way a biological species does.
“something is wrong with the Turing test”
Nope, there’s nothing wrong with the test. It wasn’t designed to test if it was “strong AI” or anything like that, it was designed to answer the question “Can machines think?” and at this point, the clear answer is yes they can.
Are they perfect? No. Can you trip them up? Yes.
Are both of those previous answers also true for humans? Yes.
There’s plenty of humans that would struggle with counting the number of “r” in Strawberry, and most models are well past that level of failure. The current ones even recommend you drive to the car wash even if it’s only 50 feet down the road.
That was EXACTLY what it was designed for, the argument being that if it is indistinguishably from a human, it has human like consciousness. That’s way beyond thinking.
Computers are “thinking” routinely. Chess programs that have existed since the 80’s are already proof of that.
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, “define think.”
To sum up Alan Turing something can be said to be thinking if it can fool humans in the imitation game.
I don’t find that a particulary satisfying definition, and doubt an up-to-date Alan Turing would either.
I’m not so sure that he would. The whole thing is rather moot though because thinking isn’t a yes or no question.
A fun quote I heard previously, was from someone involved in making bear proof garbage bins stating that there were challenges because there’s a significant overlap between the dumbest humans and the smartest bears.