▲ 196 ▼ ChatGPT broke the Turing test — the race is on for new ways to assess AI (www.nature.com) submitted 3 years ago by Five@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org 129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 114 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] philomory@lemm.ee 59 points 3 years ago (2 children) Much easier, in fact; Eliza could pass the Turing test in 1966. Humans are incredibly eager to assess other things as being human or human-like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@beehaw.org 18 points 3 years ago Go on. And what makes you think that? Mhm. Tell me more. "Human or human-like". Can you tell me more about that? How do you feel about it? permalink fedilink source parent [–] lloram239@feddit.de 15 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The real Turing test requires an expert doing the test, not just some random easily impressed person. The ELIZA-style bots work very well on the later kind, as the bot is just repeating your own text back at you with some grammatical remixing, e.g. you say "I am afraid of horses", bot says "Why do you say you are afraid of horses?". You can have very long conversation with yourself that way, as the bot contributes nothing to the discussion. It just provides enough plausible English to keep you talking. Meanwhile when you have an expert (or really just any person with a little bit of a clue) test ELIZA, the bot falls completely apart within just three lines of dialog. The bot is incredible basic and really can't do anything by itself, it completely depends on the user to provide all the content of the conversation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 52 points 3 years ago (2 children) You can take a sharpie and draw a sad face on a rock and then you'll feel sad for it. We're gullable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 60 points 3 years ago (1 child) But why is the rock sad :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 years ago I know.. I get sad just thinking about the sad rock :( permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zapp@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Wilsooooonnnnn! permalink fedilink source parent [–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 12 points 3 years ago Slap some 2D anime girl avatar on it and you got yourself a top grossing v-tuber. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ferk@kbin.social 11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) A test that didn't require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily. I can't imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn't require a human. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bedrooms@kbin.social 6 points 3 years ago* Bro, humans literally don't have that capability (that's the presumption here). Or are you saying that many of us don't have better consciousness than AIs? I might agree with that! permalink fedilink source parent [–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago https://youtu.be/WnzlbyTZsQY permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ferk@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what's a human and what's an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)... which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a "human" verdict on. So I don't think that would work very well, it'll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] habanhero@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 years ago Why is it a flaw? What do you think the Turing Test is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] philomory@lemm.ee 59 points 3 years ago (2 children) Much easier, in fact; Eliza could pass the Turing test in 1966. Humans are incredibly eager to assess other things as being human or human-like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@beehaw.org 18 points 3 years ago Go on. And what makes you think that? Mhm. Tell me more. "Human or human-like". Can you tell me more about that? How do you feel about it? permalink fedilink source parent [–] lloram239@feddit.de 15 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The real Turing test requires an expert doing the test, not just some random easily impressed person. The ELIZA-style bots work very well on the later kind, as the bot is just repeating your own text back at you with some grammatical remixing, e.g. you say "I am afraid of horses", bot says "Why do you say you are afraid of horses?". You can have very long conversation with yourself that way, as the bot contributes nothing to the discussion. It just provides enough plausible English to keep you talking. Meanwhile when you have an expert (or really just any person with a little bit of a clue) test ELIZA, the bot falls completely apart within just three lines of dialog. The bot is incredible basic and really can't do anything by itself, it completely depends on the user to provide all the content of the conversation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rentlar@beehaw.org 18 points 3 years ago Go on. And what makes you think that? Mhm. Tell me more. "Human or human-like". Can you tell me more about that? How do you feel about it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lloram239@feddit.de 15 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The real Turing test requires an expert doing the test, not just some random easily impressed person. The ELIZA-style bots work very well on the later kind, as the bot is just repeating your own text back at you with some grammatical remixing, e.g. you say "I am afraid of horses", bot says "Why do you say you are afraid of horses?". You can have very long conversation with yourself that way, as the bot contributes nothing to the discussion. It just provides enough plausible English to keep you talking. Meanwhile when you have an expert (or really just any person with a little bit of a clue) test ELIZA, the bot falls completely apart within just three lines of dialog. The bot is incredible basic and really can't do anything by itself, it completely depends on the user to provide all the content of the conversation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 52 points 3 years ago (2 children) You can take a sharpie and draw a sad face on a rock and then you'll feel sad for it. We're gullable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dom@lemmy.ca 60 points 3 years ago (1 child) But why is the rock sad :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 years ago I know.. I get sad just thinking about the sad rock :( permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zapp@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago Wilsooooonnnnn! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dom@lemmy.ca 60 points 3 years ago (1 child) But why is the rock sad :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 years ago I know.. I get sad just thinking about the sad rock :( permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 years ago I know.. I get sad just thinking about the sad rock :( permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shanghaibebop@beehaw.org 12 points 3 years ago Slap some 2D anime girl avatar on it and you got yourself a top grossing v-tuber. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferk@kbin.social 11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) A test that didn't require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily. I can't imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn't require a human. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bedrooms@kbin.social 6 points 3 years ago* Bro, humans literally don't have that capability (that's the presumption here). Or are you saying that many of us don't have better consciousness than AIs? I might agree with that! permalink fedilink source parent [–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago https://youtu.be/WnzlbyTZsQY permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ferk@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what's a human and what's an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)... which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a "human" verdict on. So I don't think that would work very well, it'll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bedrooms@kbin.social 6 points 3 years ago* Bro, humans literally don't have that capability (that's the presumption here). Or are you saying that many of us don't have better consciousness than AIs? I might agree with that! permalink fedilink source parent [–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago https://youtu.be/WnzlbyTZsQY permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ferk@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what's a human and what's an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)... which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a "human" verdict on. So I don't think that would work very well, it'll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 6 points 3 years ago* Bro, humans literally don't have that capability (that's the presumption here). Or are you saying that many of us don't have better consciousness than AIs? I might agree with that! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago https://youtu.be/WnzlbyTZsQY permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferk@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what's a human and what's an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)... which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a "human" verdict on. So I don't think that would work very well, it'll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] habanhero@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 years ago Why is it a flaw? What do you think the Turing Test is? permalink fedilink source parent