3 ms·
This is a bit like saying that none of our current crop of computers are Turing complete, because their tape isn't infinite. We will never achieve a theoretica
by dTal 3y ago
This is a bit like saying that none of our current crop of computers are Turing complete, because their tape isn't infinite.
We will never achieve a theoretically perfect Turing machine, or a program indistinguishable from a real human in every single respect including funny edge cases. But we can get close enough that it's meaningful to use the theoretical ideal in a colloquial sense that means "crosses the threshold in most contexts". GPT models can actually keep up a half-decent facade against a suspicious interlocutor for a while, something no program has ever done before.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI agree the software is doing better than ever before! However it still has serious shortcomings which is an active area of research. An AI researcher familiar with these issues could probably make an accurate detection in under one minute, so I don’t think this is an “infinite tape” issue this is simply an issue of performance. They are pretty good and they will get better, but I believe a true AGI would be able to mimic a human to properly pass the test.
- dTal 3y agoThat's entirely fair. It definitely feels like some sort of threshold has been crossed, and the only term we have for this performance axis is "the Turing test", but you're absolutely right that LLMs are very far from perfect. It feels more like the beginning of a journey rather than the end. We should probably get in the habit of treating Turing Test performance as more like a continuous scale rather than a pass/fail condition.