6 ms·

Ah ah ah, the answer "your comment punches below the belt and isn't acceptable in a community like this.".

by Kuinox 6y ago

swyx 6y ago
is this the largest scale Turing test ever performed on an audience acutely aware of what a Turing test is?
- whymauri 6y ago
  Wow, good observation. I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually true.
- AndrewKemendo 6y ago
  I think fewer people know what the Imitation game actually consists of than think they do - namely that a questioner has to guess whether a machine is a respondent to their questions, rather than another player. That certainly hasn't been tried with GPT-3 that I'm aware of. However I would agree that it is an oblique version - that is, can a machine fool humans into thinking that they are human. In which case I think it's probably safe to assume that GPT-3 has passed.
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    Turing actually asked a slightly different question, that I think is a lot more interesting. From Computing Machinery and Intelligence by A. M. Turing: > The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B > What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? Somewhat politically incorrect, assuming men and women should ever be distinguished, but much more revealing about how exactly people see themselves.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- atmosx 6y ago
  Any evidence to suggest that HN crowd distribution doesn't lean towards Pareto?
  - swyx 6y ago
    how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps.
    - atmosx 6y ago
      > how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps. Exactly.
bpodgursky 6y ago
OP should apply to be a Blade Runner. Hottest new job.
trianglem 6y ago
Totally sound and what we need more of anyways.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
The problem is that it's also true. Comments like that decrease the quality of the discussion by attacking the "author" rather than the content. (If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Exactly. I can't tell if that poster actually suspects the content was generated, or if they are simply using the comparison as an insult.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    As a criticism, i don't see how that matters. An article written by a human at the quality level of gpt-3 has the same value as an article actually written by gpt-3. Knowing that gpt-3 actually wrote the article doesn't change its level vapidity. Either the article is vapid or it isn't.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      But there's no need to accuse the author of being a robot. They could have written: > This article is vapid. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation Now, I would still have downvoted such a comment. If I'm reading a thread, I clearly like at least the article's topic, and I want to read more on that topic, not dismissive comments telling me that it's stupid. But, at least the modified version focuses on the content, rather than the author.
- ColanR 6y ago
  I mean, there's not much to elaborate on beyond what they said: "Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation."
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    It's not true, though. There really is substantive content in that blog post (although it's trite and probably useless advice, it's certainly making a real argument).
notJim 6y ago
It's possible to point out issues with a submission without insulting the submitter or author. Calling what is presumably a person the equivalent of GPT-3 is needlessly rude. Even insulting the work, but not the (presumed) person behind it is better.

Ah ah ah, the answer "your comment punches below the belt and isn't acceptable in a community like this.".

by Kuinox 6y ago

Ah ah ah, the answer "your comment punches below the belt and isn't acceptable in a community like this.".

swyx 6y ago

is this the largest scale Turing test ever performed on an audience acutely aware of what a Turing test is?

whymauri 6y ago
Wow, good observation. I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually true.
AndrewKemendo 6y ago
I think fewer people know what the Imitation game actually consists of than think they do - namely that a questioner has to guess whether a machine is a respondent to their questions, rather than another player. That certainly hasn't been tried with GPT-3 that I'm aware of. However I would agree that it is an oblique version - that is, can a machine fool humans into thinking that they are human. In which case I think it's probably safe to assume that GPT-3 has passed.
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Turing actually asked a slightly different question, that I think is a lot more interesting. From Computing Machinery and Intelligence by A. M. Turing: > The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B > What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? Somewhat politically incorrect, assuming men and women should ever be distinguished, but much more revealing about how exactly people see themselves.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
atmosx 6y ago
Any evidence to suggest that HN crowd distribution doesn't lean towards Pareto?
- swyx 6y ago
  how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps.
  - atmosx 6y ago
    > how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps. Exactly.

bpodgursky 6y ago

OP should apply to be a Blade Runner. Hottest new job.

trianglem 6y ago

Totally sound and what we need more of anyways.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

The problem is that it's also true. Comments like that decrease the quality of the discussion by attacking the "author" rather than the content. (If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)

happytoexplain 6y ago
Exactly. I can't tell if that poster actually suspects the content was generated, or if they are simply using the comparison as an insult.
- bawolff 6y ago
  As a criticism, i don't see how that matters. An article written by a human at the quality level of gpt-3 has the same value as an article actually written by gpt-3. Knowing that gpt-3 actually wrote the article doesn't change its level vapidity. Either the article is vapid or it isn't.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    But there's no need to accuse the author of being a robot. They could have written: > This article is vapid. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation Now, I would still have downvoted such a comment. If I'm reading a thread, I clearly like at least the article's topic, and I want to read more on that topic, not dismissive comments telling me that it's stupid. But, at least the modified version focuses on the content, rather than the author.
ColanR 6y ago
I mean, there's not much to elaborate on beyond what they said: "Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation."
- umanwizard 6y ago
  It's not true, though. There really is substantive content in that blog post (although it's trite and probably useless advice, it's certainly making a real argument).

notJim 6y ago

It's possible to point out issues with a submission without insulting the submitter or author. Calling what is presumably a person the equivalent of GPT-3 is needlessly rude. Even insulting the work, but not the (presumed) person behind it is better.