2 ms·
You have no idea whether you're talking to an LLM right now, and neither do I. That's good enough for me.
by CamperBob2 9mo ago
You have no idea whether you're talking to an LLM right now, and neither do I. That's good enough for me.
- lostmsu 9mo agoI dunno, I am rather certain your comment was not made by an LLM. Moreover I am certain you knew my wasn't either. And that's before the interrogation, which is the entire point of the test. IMO, Turing test stands, but the experience you are referring to is basically a sub-human form of AGI.
- CamperBob2 9mo agoIt's crystal-clear that a model that was trained specifically to fool expert interrogators in a Turing test would, in fact, be able to do so. You'd have to sandbag the model just to keep it from tipping its hand by being too good. We don't have any such models right now, AFAIK, so we can't run such a test. They wouldn't be much good for anything else, and would likely spark ethical concerns due to potential for misuse. But I have no doubt that it's possible to train for the Turing test.
- lostmsu 9mo agoI mean is it though? The top reasoning models suggest to walk to a car wash.
- DangitBobby 9mo agoThe top reasoning models suggest taking a car to the car wash.
- lostmsu 9mo agoNot 100% of time according to comments.
- CamperBob2 9mo agoSotA doesn't matter, though. Only the first couple of time derivatives matter. Looking good for the clankers, not so much for us...