> But today’s A.I. systems can pass the Turing Test with flying colors, and researchers have had to come up with new, harder evaluations. It’s a bit petty to r

> But today’s A.I. systems can pass the Turing Test with flying colors, and researchers have had to come up with new, harder evaluations. It’s a bit petty to rag on a single sentence… but why do editors still let falsehoods like this slide? There is not a single LLM that can pass a properly administered Turing test. Just last week I saw GPT-4 badly failed a de facto Turing test because it wasn’t able to count to 17. The idea that a Turing test means “do laypeople find the dialogue eerily human-like?” is one of the tech community’s most pernicious bits of nonsense. And here it is, repeated uncritically in the New York Times. Extremely frustrating.