4 ms·

> some interrogators reported thinking that ELIZA was “too bad” to be a current AI model, and therefore was more likely to be a human intentionally being uncoop

> some interrogators reported thinking that ELIZA was “too bad” to be a current AI model, and therefore was more likely to be a human intentionally being uncooperative

masswerk 3y ago
Given that ELIZA doesn't really work outside its supposed social setup, which makes some of its behavior acceptable and/or intelligible, it would be hard to believe that anyone would have been actually fooled by this. (Still, the performance of ELIZA in the bounds of its intended setup is remarkable, especially for its small rule set. But there is little doubt that this is insufficient for a sustained free conversation.) – Let's call it a "parasitic win". ;-)
ithkuil 3y ago
It clearly shows that the Turing test is not only about the bot but also about the humans
- rvense 3y ago
  You can think of a language as an psychological object, a thing that can be described by a grammar and a dictionary. That's basically where linguistics started, and it's part of it. But some things about language are really best understood and described by looking at it as a thing that people do together, a situated, interactice activity. And I think that part of the reason that both Eliza and GPT work so well is that the observer really, really wants it to, because that's a crucial part of how this activity is structured, as described by Grice and others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
  - pyinstallwoes 3y ago
    I like to think of it as language is intelligence as a lifeform, and humans as a hostform. Language has operations and rules that construct the space of all possible thought, and not all languages are in the set of all possible thoughts. The host form navigates a coordinate space of a constrainted possible thoughts. Whenever a language is used to communicate across interface boundaries (bodies) then some level of mapping takes place to exchanging mutual possible thoughts.
- trehalose 3y ago
  Yep. It demonstrates that the Turing test is strongly influenced by the culture it's administered in. One bot can influence other bots' performance on the test just by existing and being familiar to the public.
  - pyinstallwoes 3y ago
    There's an amusing perspective I imagine from the intelligence of a AGI/ASI that has to consider the arrogance of being told that one must complete a human-level intelligence test.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      Imagine the amusement of said AGI when it reads that us humans are so arrogant to think that any intelligence must come with a full set of our petty human emotions including that of be annoyed by somebody's arrogance.
IshKebab 3y ago
Surely the Turing test requires the human to be cooperative and try to prove their humanity?

> some interrogators reported thinking that ELIZA was “too bad” to be a current AI model, and therefore was more likely to be a human intentionally being uncooperative

masswerk 3y ago

Given that ELIZA doesn't really work outside its supposed social setup, which makes some of its behavior acceptable and/or intelligible, it would be hard to believe that anyone would have been actually fooled by this. (Still, the performance of ELIZA in the bounds of its intended setup is remarkable, especially for its small rule set. But there is little doubt that this is insufficient for a sustained free conversation.) – Let's call it a "parasitic win". ;-)

ithkuil 3y ago

It clearly shows that the Turing test is not only about the bot but also about the humans

rvense 3y ago
You can think of a language as an psychological object, a thing that can be described by a grammar and a dictionary. That's basically where linguistics started, and it's part of it. But some things about language are really best understood and described by looking at it as a thing that people do together, a situated, interactice activity. And I think that part of the reason that both Eliza and GPT work so well is that the observer really, really wants it to, because that's a crucial part of how this activity is structured, as described by Grice and others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
- pyinstallwoes 3y ago
  I like to think of it as language is intelligence as a lifeform, and humans as a hostform. Language has operations and rules that construct the space of all possible thought, and not all languages are in the set of all possible thoughts. The host form navigates a coordinate space of a constrainted possible thoughts. Whenever a language is used to communicate across interface boundaries (bodies) then some level of mapping takes place to exchanging mutual possible thoughts.
trehalose 3y ago
Yep. It demonstrates that the Turing test is strongly influenced by the culture it's administered in. One bot can influence other bots' performance on the test just by existing and being familiar to the public.
- pyinstallwoes 3y ago
  There's an amusing perspective I imagine from the intelligence of a AGI/ASI that has to consider the arrogance of being told that one must complete a human-level intelligence test.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Imagine the amusement of said AGI when it reads that us humans are so arrogant to think that any intelligence must come with a full set of our petty human emotions including that of be annoyed by somebody's arrogance.

IshKebab 3y ago

Surely the Turing test requires the human to be cooperative and try to prove their humanity?