3 ms·
> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence
by setopt 1mo ago
> But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition
I do recall a couple of decades ago, when the Turing test was discussed as the big goal that seemed so far away. Then LLMs arguably did pass the test, and no one cared about the test anymore.
- kaeluka 1mo agoI thought the same then. But the funny thing is that today, it has become a lot easier to recognize the frontier models as not human. All the load bearing and not x but y, etc… weird
- treis 1mo agoThis is a tell of LLMs but it's not universal. I use ChatGPT extensively and I don't often get obvious nonsense any more. I'd figure out that it's an LLM because it's effectively superhuman. Taking that away I'm not so sure I'd be able to tell
- jurgenburgen 1mo agoThe ultimate tell is still the sycophancy. You agree with the suggestion output by the LLM but if it detects even a slight pushback it will completely reverse the previous suggestion. Only way to make it more obvious would be to have the LLM grovel and beg. If these things have consciousness then we are committing sadism on a massive scale.
- treis 1mo agoIt feels like it's getting better at that too. It will push back against obvious nonsense a lot stronger. But you are right that it holds opinions quite a bit less strenuously than humans.
- jaccola 1mo agoIt hasn’t been passed and no one cares about it because it’s basically an end goal. No lab can hit it so they can’t juice the crazy Turing benchmark 3000 for marketing. If someone sat me down today with an LLM and a human and both were trying to prove to me they were human, and I can have conversations of arbitrary length, I’d get it right every time.
- layla5alive 1mo agoThe test was not "after thousands of hours of conversing with them, knowing they're AI, THEN see if you can tell them apart blindly." Were 2010 you to be in a real turing test with an arbitrary erudite human and a 2026 frontier LLM, not knowing LLMs existed, you'd probably struggle
- smohare 1mo agoI doubt this entirely. It might be quite difficult for said human to discern whether a simple passage were generated sans such accumulated experience in reading AI text, true. But LLMs do not converse like humans in ways that have always been essentially immediately obvious.
- zoho_seni 1mo agoHave you seen how many people talk to bots these days thinking is a real person. Or that are even in a relationship with them or friends.
- jurgenburgen 1mo agoSometimes I wonder if LLMs are just revealing a section of the population with untreated mental illness or if LLMs are actively exacerbating mental illness. We might eventually regret exposing the general population to such a new technology without almost any safeguards.
- customguy 1mo agoSo? The people who can do it prove it can be done - the people who can't don't prove the opposite. Might as well claim all math is wrong because most people don't understand it.