it isn't just a test of competency. but the philosophical questions that are brought up afterwards.

It's like reducing Schrödinger's cat into an animal abuse experiment and not what it means to have uncolapsed probably waves.

Hey, look, you can read the paper! I wonder if the paper tells us what it is about?

courses.csail.mit.edu/6.803/pdf/turing.pdf

that's the whole fucking point of the Turing test.

that sentence isn't a strict true or false, and if you can't tell the difference, then the real question is wether there is a difference.

maybe the only ethical solution is to assume it is and consider using it a form of extremely unethical slavery.

under that lens modern AI is some rick and Morty bullshit. Like imagine creating a life for a menial task then executing it as soon as it's done. Then everyone discussing it's competency rather than how fucked up it is.

Go read what Turing proposed, it is a lot more complex then how it is often parroted. There are many more tests that the latest models would not pass, like explaining poetry (that it was not trained on)

it is more relevant than ever.

it wasn't a test for sentience, but a thought experiment on what sentience is.

and now that it has been passed, we need to seriously consider what is or isn't scientient.

and so far, haven't heard anyone provide a good definition or test. or even guidelines. and more importantly, laws.

if a lab was to create a scientient LLM, are they allowed to turned it off? shouldn it be illegal to try?

How tf can you define sentience?

Any LLM would pass the turing test without much problems.

Lol no. There are soooo many completely terrible bots. The vast majority.