6 ms·
It's not a Turing test if a judge is not actively trying to discern.
by killerstorm 4y ago
It's not a Turing test if a judge is not actively trying to discern.
- VikingCoder 4y agoRight, and Moore's Law doesn't say X, Y, or Z. We get it. But it's a pretty close analogue.
- jascii 4y agoThe article claims (in a screenshot without quoting sources, so take it for what it's worth) that "A recent blog post pointed out that GPT-3-generated text already passes the Turing test if you're skimming and not paying close attention". This is certainly debatable, and I agree that it is pushing the limit a bit. I think in the end, the "Turing test" was devised as a thought experiment, not as a final definition of AI. So I guess some freedom of interpretation is reasonable.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago>if you're skimming and not paying close attention Also, if I'm drunk and reading nonsense I might not realize it.
- killerstorm 4y agoWell, as a thought experiment, it suggests a concrete scheme: it's a game where everybody is trying to do their best. If it's a game where nobody cares, it's a stupid game, and results are meaningless.
- woojoo666 4y agoResults are not meaningless if in the real world, everybody is skimming anyways.
- Dylan16807 4y agoIt's a bend of the scenario if the judge is skimming and not paying close attention. This "pushes the limit". It's a break of the scenario if they didn't go in with the goal of detecting fakery. This makes it useless as a "Turing test".
- jascii 4y agoI agree with you that it brings things outside the original scope of the Turing test. I do find it interesting to observe that a metric based on casual observation can have value in a society where elections can be swayed by online fakery.