I think fewer people know what the Imitation game actually consists of than think they do - namely that a questioner has to guess whether a machine is a respondent to their questions, rather than another player. That certainly hasn't been tried with GPT-3 that I'm aware of.

However I would agree that it is an oblique version - that is, can a machine fool humans into thinking that they are human.

In which case I think it's probably safe to assume that GPT-3 has passed.

Turing actually asked a slightly different question, that I think is a lot more interesting. From Computing Machinery and Intelligence by A. M. Turing:

> The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B

> What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?

Somewhat politically incorrect, assuming men and women should ever be distinguished, but much more revealing about how exactly people see themselves.

Wow, good observation. I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually true.

Any evidence to suggest that HN crowd distribution doesn't lean towards Pareto?

how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps.

> how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps.

Exactly.