4 ms·

This is kind of an irrelevant (and doubtless unoriginal) shower thought here but, if humans are judging the AI to be human much more often than the human, surel

by Joeboy 1y ago

This is kind of an irrelevant (and doubtless unoriginal) shower thought here but, if humans are judging the AI to be human much more often than the human, surely that means the AI is not faithfully reproducing human behaviour.

delusional 1y ago
This comes down to the interpretation of the Turing test. Turing's original test actually pitted the two "unknowns" against each other. Put simply, both the human and the computer would try to make you believe they were the person. The objective of the game was to be seen as human, not to be indistinguishable from human. This is obviously not quite what people understand the Turing test as anymore, and I think that interpretation confusion actually ends up weakening the linked paper. Your thought aptly describes a problem with the paper, but that problem is not present in the Turing test by its original formulation.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  If you're referring to the paper I linked to, their experiments use bona fide 3-party Turing tests as per Turing's original "Imitation Game".
  - delusional 1y ago
    It's hard to say what a "bona fide 3-party Turing test" is. The paper even has a section trying to tackle that issue. I think trying to discuss the minutia of the rules is a path that leads only to madness. The Turing test was always meant to be a philosophical game. The point was to establish a scenario in which a computer could be indistinguishable from a human. Carrying it out in reality in meaningless, unless you're willing to abandon all intuitive morality. Quite frankly, I find the paper you linked misguided. If it was undertaken by some college students, then it's good practice, but if it was carried out by seasoned professionals they should find something better to do.
    - akoboldfrying 1y ago
      I only read the abstract, but if the body bears it out and there were decent sample sizes, I think it's interesting and worthwhile. > The Turing test was always meant to be a philosophical game. Says who? Not Alan Turing.
akoboldfrying 1y ago
Sure, a non-human's performance "should" be capped at ~50% for a large sample size. I think seeing a much higher percentage, like 73%, indicates systematic error in the interrogator. This -- the fact that humans are not good at detecting genuine human behaviour -- is really a problem in the Turing test itself, but I don't see a good way to solve it. LLaMa 3.1 with the same prompt "only" managed to be judged human 56% of the time, so perhaps it's actually closer to real human behaviour.

by Joeboy 1y ago

delusional 1y ago

This comes down to the interpretation of the Turing test. Turing's original test actually pitted the two "unknowns" against each other. Put simply, both the human and the computer would try to make you believe they were the person. The objective of the game was to be seen as human, not to be indistinguishable from human. This is obviously not quite what people understand the Turing test as anymore, and I think that interpretation confusion actually ends up weakening the linked paper. Your thought aptly describes a problem with the paper, but that problem is not present in the Turing test by its original formulation.

akoboldfrying 1y ago
If you're referring to the paper I linked to, their experiments use bona fide 3-party Turing tests as per Turing's original "Imitation Game".
- delusional 1y ago
  It's hard to say what a "bona fide 3-party Turing test" is. The paper even has a section trying to tackle that issue. I think trying to discuss the minutia of the rules is a path that leads only to madness. The Turing test was always meant to be a philosophical game. The point was to establish a scenario in which a computer could be indistinguishable from a human. Carrying it out in reality in meaningless, unless you're willing to abandon all intuitive morality. Quite frankly, I find the paper you linked misguided. If it was undertaken by some college students, then it's good practice, but if it was carried out by seasoned professionals they should find something better to do.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    I only read the abstract, but if the body bears it out and there were decent sample sizes, I think it's interesting and worthwhile. > The Turing test was always meant to be a philosophical game. Says who? Not Alan Turing.

akoboldfrying 1y ago

Sure, a non-human's performance "should" be capped at ~50% for a large sample size. I think seeing a much higher percentage, like 73%, indicates systematic error in the interrogator. This -- the fact that humans are not good at detecting genuine human behaviour -- is really a problem in the Turing test itself, but I don't see a good way to solve it. LLaMa 3.1 with the same prompt "only" managed to be judged human 56% of the time, so perhaps it's actually closer to real human behaviour.