4 ms·
Couldn’t we just go back to the “Turing Test?” I know, I know, early “AI” passed that, right! Ha! Could you chat with an “AI” of any kind now and not distingu
by sunscream89 1y ago
Couldn’t we just go back to the “Turing Test?”
I know, I know, early “AI” passed that, right! Ha!
Could you chat with an “AI” of any kind now and not distinguish from a human? Not in a staged environment, one where you hire a human to do a remote technical job?
Let AGI be one who passes a functional remote role as indistinguishable from a human (of any capacity, even one with English as a second language to make subtle idiosyncrasies irrelevant.
- CamperBob2 1y agoAs with all variations of the Turing Test, that one fails because it says more about the gullibility of the human participant than it does about the intelligence of the computer. It's also arguably been passed already.
- vunderba 1y agoYep - look at past "winners" of the Loebner prize. The feats of social and psychological manipulation were more impressive than the AI powering 99% of the chatbots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize
- sunscream89 1y agoThat’s what I’m talking about. Can’t have it both ways. Take some effing responsibility for a competent test by competent test takers. This is not a public gimmick, this is edge humankind. Getting a remote job as an **, indistinguishably from a competent human, that’s a test.