3 ms·

The most damning evidence that ChatGPT has passed the Turing test with flying colors is that the author relies on its testimony about itself.

• joshka 4y ago
  It's not really - especially given that the author is aware that ChatGPT actually is a computer. The Turing test relies on either the tester not knowing a computer is involved or not knowing which of two parties is a computer. Ironically, one of the easiest thing to spot that marks ChatGPT's responses as inhuman is its confidence in reporting something as factual and then when contradicted the way that it reports the opposite. In my experience, humans tend to put up more of a fight to defend their perspectives even when they are wrong. This just comes down to the author being loose with their conclusions. It's unclear to me whether this is intentionally hyperbolic or satirical, or whether the author's claims are their actual beliefs. I'd lean towards the first explanation based on Eric Holloway's bio. But this is the real kicker that I'd disagree with: > "Now, I have an explicit admission from the chatbot" No, you have a language model's prediction of what would complete a conversation where you presented an idea and the model has sufficient data to write sentences that would conform to the idea rather than contradicting it. Given knowledge that this is how the responses work, inferring that the model is reporting any sort of accurate information must be inherently treated as suspect. It's reasonably possible to lead the model down a path of conversation where the opposite idea is presented (that humans are not in the loop). That this is so indicates that this article is incorrect in it's stated conclusion (again assuming that it's not satire).