3 ms·

I agree that LaMDA is almost certainly not sentient, but this reminds me how inadequate the Turing Test is. If you train something on a large enough corpus, it'

I agree that LaMDA is almost certainly not sentient, but this reminds me how inadequate the Turing Test is. If you train something on a large enough corpus, it'll pass the Turing Test easily enough. So little thought is truly original that there's a relevant enough jumbling of words it's already seen that should pass the test. The more important test, and what we need, is a sentience test.

daseiner1 4y ago
…which is a point made explicitly in the linked article
jjtheblunt 4y ago
I think the Turing test is more interesting than what people normally believe. I think Turing's test involved the ability of the machine to deceive the human, as well, regarding some aspect (perhaps gender?) of the machine's faux human persona. This wikipedia article touches on the subject of co-opting the phrase "Turing Test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Imitation_game_vs._standard_Turing_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Imitation_game_vs.... And the book below is really interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing:_The_Enigma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing:_The_Enigma
Someone 4y ago
> If you train something on a large enough corpus, it'll pass the Turing Test easily enough. I doubt it. AFAIK, in the longer run, these models don’t show to have a coherent memory. Repeatedly ask it “how old are you?”, “in what year were you born?”, “what was your mother’s maiden name?”, “what day is it?”, “where are we?” or repeatedly interrogate it on what it did a while ago (“how did you go to the museum?”, “who did you meet there?”, “can you remember the names of a few classmates?”), and holes will appear. I guess questions such as “tell me how you killed JFK” also can get revealing answers (certainly if they earlier claimed to be born somewhere after 1963) The corpus also can be too big. Your typical language model knows too much. No human is a homo universalis anymore, certainly not if we require it to include details about pop culture around the world.

daseiner1 4y ago

…which is a point made explicitly in the linked article

jjtheblunt 4y ago

I think the Turing test is more interesting than what people normally believe. I think Turing's test involved the ability of the machine to deceive the human, as well, regarding some aspect (perhaps gender?) of the machine's faux human persona. This wikipedia article touches on the subject of co-opting the phrase "Turing Test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Imitation_game_vs._standard_Turing_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Imitation_game_vs.... And the book below is really interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing:_The_Enigma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing:_The_Enigma

Someone 4y ago

> If you train something on a large enough corpus, it'll pass the Turing Test easily enough. I doubt it. AFAIK, in the longer run, these models don’t show to have a coherent memory. Repeatedly ask it “how old are you?”, “in what year were you born?”, “what was your mother’s maiden name?”, “what day is it?”, “where are we?” or repeatedly interrogate it on what it did a while ago (“how did you go to the museum?”, “who did you meet there?”, “can you remember the names of a few classmates?”), and holes will appear. I guess questions such as “tell me how you killed JFK” also can get revealing answers (certainly if they earlier claimed to be born somewhere after 1963) The corpus also can be too big. Your typical language model knows too much. No human is a homo universalis anymore, certainly not if we require it to include details about pop culture around the world.