5 ms·
That’s his definition and in no way a universal one. In the meantime, it’s still very easy to differentiate between an AI and a human in a chat. You just need
by khalic 2mo ago
That’s his definition and in no way a universal one.
In the meantime, it’s still very easy to differentiate between an AI and a human in a chat. You just need to know the quirks of these systems. Like counting letters, hitting the safeguards, etc.
So call me when one of them can pass the Turing test against me and then we can talk about AGI
- pixl97 2mo agoThere is no accepted definition of intelligence that is usable for classification of intelligence across the sciences. On top of that for your strong feelings, you don't have the conviction to write down a strong definition of intelligence yourself, which allows you to accelerate the goal posts up to light speed. The fun thing about writing out a formal definition is suddenly almost everything or almost nothing, including a lot of humans, has intelligence. Not basing intelligence on your feelings of the moment makes it a hard thing to define across everything intelligence applies to.
- khalic 2mo ago[dead]
- tristanj 2mo ago> So call me when one of them can pass the Turing test against me and then we can talk about AGI Ring ring I'm calling you right now. We blew past the Turing test goalpost over a year ago, using 2024 models. https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/has-ai-passed-the-turing-test-science-technology/ https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/has-ai-passed-the-turing-test-... GPT-4.5 passed the Turing Test with a 73% human rating, outscoring actual human subjects. That is, human evaluators considered the AI more human than an actual human, 73% of the time. LLaMa-3.1 was judged to be a human 56% of the time. The 'strawberry' test was fixed years ago with the invention of CoT; models only fail that test today when thinking is disabled.