Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant?

Posted by rabbits_unite on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:05PM
from the ask-hn dept.

I know avid users of ChatGPT who say their clients can't tell the difference between human vs bot generated content/conversations.

It can be argued that a system can be said to "pass the test" only if it was interrogated by an expert, and the expert still failed to distinguish it.

But the systems continue to improve at a fast pace. And at this point it seems like we are in the beginning of a "post-Turing" world.

Do you think we crossed that mark? If not, what specific advancement would convince you? Does it even matter, as we embrace the brave new world?

( 5 comments | 2 points | on HN )

Re:Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant? by anigbrowl on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:40PM (#34731065)

* * *

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant? by rabbits_unite on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:53PM (#34731282)

I think LLMs are showing that neither cognition nor consciousness is needed to pass.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant? by xilinx_guy on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:13PM (#34730667)

We obviously need a new test. The new benchmark for large language models should be "Truth" with a numeric score defined as -Log( Percentage_of_Lies_Told ). This way, a perfectly truthful model will have a numeric score of +infinity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant? by PaulHoule on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:27PM (#34730890)

In some sense it was defeated in the 1980s. The ability to actively listen and change the subject when you are over your head will get you far in conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do you think the Turing Test is still relevant? by mindcrime on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:51PM (#34731266)

Honestly, I don't think the Turing test was ever particularly useful. Interpreted the way most people usually interpret it, it's more of a measure of the ability of the machine to lie well, than a real measure of intelligence. And while those things may be related, they certainly seem orthogonal to me. It also seems like possibly a bad idea to focus on teaching our AI to lie well. And I say this as somebody who is not a big "AI Risk" pundit.

[ Parent | on HN ]