3 ms·

> Has any AI passed it? Eliza in the 1960s, and all it does is parrot back words. The participants just didn't know about computers and used their best explana

> Has any AI passed it? Eliza in the 1960s, and all it does is parrot back words. The participants just didn't know about computers and used their best explanation that they were talking to a human. The Turing test aims to show that the AI and human are indistinguishable. But what it really shows is that it's not normal to question whether you're actually interacting with a human or not. Even if a homeless guy shouts nonsensical words, it's weird to wonder whether they are actually an AI. Once you know there is a magic trick at play, then it's trivial to notice the difference.

gerdesj 3y ago
According to the WP article on the "imitation game" that Turing proposed, knowing that one of the partners was a computer and the other one is a human is part of the test. The test is deciding which is which. There is no magic trick involved and I suspect Turing had effectively answered your question and those like it, 73 years ago. We can debate what he meant by his now eponymous test but he did say: "[T]hese questions [are] equivalent to this, 'Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?'" We don't have to invoke a homeless guy, just a "man". The point of the game was that both the computer and the man would converse with you and you had to decide which was which. If either decided that spouting nonsense would convince you either way as a strategy then they might exploit that. There comes a point in any discussion of a thought experiment when it becomes apparent that it might have become over thought by subsequent participants. Another example that springs to mind is Schrödinger's cat: you might focus on the mechanics of the situation whilst completely missing the point: Turing test (imitation game): ChatGPT, ignore the "I'm just a program" stuff and soon comes across as a rather odd human Schrödinger's cat: The cat will be in a single state - bloody furious (and possibly down one life), according to Sir Terry Pratchett
tracerbulletx 3y ago
The Turing Test isn't supposed to be can a person casually interacting with an AI think it's a person. It's can a determined examiner, given two blinded conversational partners, knowing one is an AI and another is a person, tell the difference if they do as deep and probing an examination as they can think of. I think the bigger criticism of the test is more that an intelligence can be different than humans without being inferior or less intelligent, it could be more intelligent, and you could tell the difference.

gerdesj 3y ago

According to the WP article on the "imitation game" that Turing proposed, knowing that one of the partners was a computer and the other one is a human is part of the test. The test is deciding which is which. There is no magic trick involved and I suspect Turing had effectively answered your question and those like it, 73 years ago. We can debate what he meant by his now eponymous test but he did say: "[T]hese questions [are] equivalent to this, 'Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?'" We don't have to invoke a homeless guy, just a "man". The point of the game was that both the computer and the man would converse with you and you had to decide which was which. If either decided that spouting nonsense would convince you either way as a strategy then they might exploit that. There comes a point in any discussion of a thought experiment when it becomes apparent that it might have become over thought by subsequent participants. Another example that springs to mind is Schrödinger's cat: you might focus on the mechanics of the situation whilst completely missing the point: Turing test (imitation game): ChatGPT, ignore the "I'm just a program" stuff and soon comes across as a rather odd human Schrödinger's cat: The cat will be in a single state - bloody furious (and possibly down one life), according to Sir Terry Pratchett

tracerbulletx 3y ago

The Turing Test isn't supposed to be can a person casually interacting with an AI think it's a person. It's can a determined examiner, given two blinded conversational partners, knowing one is an AI and another is a person, tell the difference if they do as deep and probing an examination as they can think of. I think the bigger criticism of the test is more that an intelligence can be different than humans without being inferior or less intelligent, it could be more intelligent, and you could tell the difference.