Since ChatGPT is not indistinguishable from a human during a chat, is it fair to say it smashes the Turing test? Or do you mean something different?

Did you perhaps mean to say not distinguishable?

ChatGPT is distinguishable from a human, because ChatGPT never responds "I don't know.", at least not yet. :)

It can do: https://chat.openai.com/share/f1c0726f-294d-447d-a3b3-f664dc...

IMO the main reason it's distinguishable is because it keeps explicitly telling you it's an AI.

This isn't the same thing. This is a commanded recital of a lack of capability, not that its confidence in it's answer is low. For a type of question the GPT _could_ answer, most of the time it _will_ answer, regardless of accuracy

I just noticed that when I ask difficult technical questions, but for which there is an exact answer, he often tries to answer plausibly, but incorrectly instead of answering "I don't know".

Have you tried setting a custom instruction in settings? I find that setting helps, albeit with weaker impact than the prompt itself.

It's not a problem for me. It's good that I can detect chatGPT by this sign.

It doesn't become smarter except for releases of new models. It's an inference engine.

I read an article where they did a proper Turing test and it seems people recognize it was a machine answering because it made no writing errors and wrote perfectly

I've not read that, but I do remember hearing that the first human to fail the Turing test did so because they seemed to know far too much minutiae about Star Trek.

Maybe It's because It was never rewarded for such answers when It was learning.

Of course it does.

It absolutely does that (GPT-4 especially), and I have hit it many times in regular conversations without specifically asking for it.

not yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20216

that being said, it is highly intelligent, capable of reasoning as well as a human, and passes IQ tests like GMAT and GRE at levels like the 97th percentile.

most people who talk about Chat GPT don't even realize that GPT 4 exists and is orders of magnitude more intelligent than the free version.

Answers in Progress had a great video[0] where one of their presenters tested against an LLM in five different types of intelligence. tl;dr, AI was worlds ahead on two of the five, and worlds behind on the other three. Interesting stuff -- and clear that we're not as close to AGI as some of us might have thought earlier this year, but probably closer than a lot of the naysayers think.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrSCwxrLrRc

That’s just showing the tests are measuring specific things that LLMs can game particularly well.

Computers have been able to smash high school algebra tests since the 1970’s, but that doesn’t make them as smart as a 16 year old (or even a three year old).

It’s trivial to trip up chat LLMs. “What is the fourth word of your answer?”

got-3.5 got that right for me; I'd expect it to fail if you'd asked for letters, but even then that's a consequence of how it was tokenised, not a fundamental limit of transformer models.

This sort of test has been my go-to trip up for LLMs, and 3.5 fails quite often. 4 has been as bad as 3.5 in the past but recently has been doing better.

if this is the test you're going to then you literally do not understand how LLMs work. it's like asking your keyboard to tell you what colour the nth pixel on the top row of your computer monitor is.

An LLM could easily answer that question if it was trained to do it. Nothing in its architecture makes it hard to answer, the attention part could easily look up the previous parts of its answer and refer to the fourth word but it doesn't do that.

So it is a good example that the LLM doesn't generalize understanding, it can answer the question in theory but not in practice since it isn't smart enough. A human can easily answer it even though the human never saw such a question before.

Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding here:

"the attention part could easily look up the previous parts of its answer and refer to the fourth word but it doesn't do that."

No.

Because the method of interaction with the base model that consumers and developers have access to through ChatGPT and the ChatCompletions endpoint, respectively, STREAMS output tokens as they are generated, on the fly.

the reason a gpt model can't identify the n-th word in its own output while generating it boils down to its core mechanisms and architecture.

the model operates in a linear, forward-only generation mode. this means it's always focused on predicting the next token based on the cumulative context it has processed so far, which includes the initial prompt and all previously generated tokens.

the model employs an attention mechanism, yes, sure, but this attention is not about self-reflection or meta-analysis, it's about weighing the importance of different parts of the input to predict the next token.

the model doesn't have a functionality to retrospectively analyse its own output; it doesn't track or count words as it generates text. it's always in the mode of 'what comes next?' rather than 'what have i written?'

also, again, tired of explaining this to people: gpt models are token-based. they operate at the level of tokens - which can be whole words or parts of words - and not individual characters. this token-based approach means the model's primary concern is predicting the most probable next token, not keeping track of the position of each token in the sequence, and the smallest resolution available to it is not a character. this is why it can't tell you what the nth letter of a word is either.

lastly, there's no external memory or state mechanism in gpt models that would allow for tracking specific details like the position of words in a sentence. the model processes the input sequence in its entirety for each new token generation, without maintaining a separate state or memory for specific sequence details.

and THAT is why people saying these things aren't capable of these tasks are just clueless.

it's as simple as a slight change to the architecture, but there is no need to do that right now when it is costly and the current architecture satisfies all but the most absurd tests run by people who don't have the slightest clue of how the models they're 'testing' work.

> the model doesn't have a functionality to retrospectively analyse its own output; it doesn't track or count words as it generates text. it's always in the mode of 'what comes next?' rather than 'what have i written?'

Humans doesn't do that either. The reason humans can solve this problem is that humans can generate such strategies on the fly and thus solve general problems, that is the bar for AGI, as long as you say it is unfair to give such problems to the model we know that we aren't talking about an AGI.

Making a new AI that is specialized in solving this specific problem by changing the input representation still isn't an AGI, it will have many similar tasks that it will fail at.

> also, again, tired of explaining this to people: gpt models are token-based. they operate at the level of tokens - which can be whole words or parts of words - and not individual characters. this token-based approach means the model's primary concern is predicting the most probable next token, not keeping track of the position of each token in the sequence, and the smallest resolution available to it is not a character. this is why it can't tell you what the nth letter of a word is either.

And humans are a pixel based model, we operate on pixels and physical outputs. Yet we humans do generate all the necessary context, and adapts it to the task at hand to solve arbitrary problem. Such context and inputs manipulations are expected of an AGI. Maybe not the entire way from pixels and 3d mechanical movement, but there are many steps in between there that humans can easily adapt in. For example humans didn't evolve to read and write text, yet we do that easily even though we operate on a pixel level.

If you ask me to count letters my mind focuses on the letter representation I created in my head. If you talk about words I focus on the word representation. If you talk about holes I focus on the pixel representation and start to identify color parts. If you talk about sounds I focus on the vocal representation of the words since I can transform to that as well.

We would expect an AGI to make similar translations when needed, from the token space you talk about to the letter space or word space etc. That ChatGPT and similar can't do this just means they aren't even close to AGI currently.

We all know it is because of the encodings. But as a test to see if it is a human or a computer it is a good one.

Oh, I missed that GP said "of your answer" instead "of my question", as in: "What is the third word of this sentence?"

For prompts like that, I have found no LLM to be very reliable, though GPT 4 is doing much better at it recently.

> you literally do not understand how LLMs work

Hey, how about you take it down a notch, you don't need to blow your blood pressure in the first few days of joining HN.

How well does that work on humans?

The fourth word of my answer is "of".

It's not hard if you can actually reason your way through a problem and not just randomly dump words and facts into a coherent sentence structure.

I reckon an LLM with a second pass correction loop would manage it. (By that I mean that after every response it is instructed to, given the its previous response, produce a second better response, roughly analogous to a human that thinks before it speaks)

LLMs are not AIs, but they could be a core component for one.

Every token is already being generated with all previously generated tokens as inputs. There's nothing about the architecture that makes this hard. It just hasn't been trained on this kind of task.

Really? I don’t know of a positional encoding scheme that’ll handle this.

The following are a part of my "custom instructions" to chatGPT -

"Please include a timestamp with current date and time at the end of each response.

After generating each answer, check it for internal consistency and accuracy. Revise your answer if it is inconsistent or inaccurate, and do this repeatedly till you have an accurate and consistent answer."

It manages to follow them very inconsistently, but it has gone into something approaching an infinite loop (for infinity ~= 10) on a few occasions - rechecking the last timestamp against current time, finding a mismatch, generating a new timestamp, and so on until (I think) it finally exits the loop by failing to follow instructions.

I think you are confusing a slow or broken api response with thinking. It can't produce an accurate timestamp.

right, but that's why the people using this as a test of the model's capabilities are just failing to understand the most basic aspect of how it is set up.

the underlying model is presented to the public as a chat bot.

it does not think or plan before it begins speaking.

that is not to say that it couldn't.

it is simply not configured to, so testing that is about as stupid as checking if google has gone into the gardening business yet.

could they? sure. but if you're checking that every time a new google press release comes out, you're just clueless.

I find GPT-3.5 can be tripped up by just asking it to not to mention the words "apologize" or "January 2022" in its answer.

It immediately apologises and tells you it doesn't know anything after January 2022.

Compared to GPT-4 GPT-3.5 is just a random bullshit generator.

this is a trick i am tired of seeing people talk about.

LOL LLMs ARE SO DUMB THEY DONT KNOW THE LETTER R IS IN BLUEBERRY

The smallest resolution of an LLM is a token, not a character. It cannot see characters unless it uses external functions (python interpreter for example to get an answer)

Likewise, much like a human, it doesn't "think before it speaks"

Ask a human to start speaking a sentence and tell you the fourth word of their sentence as they speak it.

Their success rate will be just as low.

And again: tokens. not words. not characters. tokens.

i am sick of people claiming to have a clue what is going on with LLMs fail to understand the most basic aspects of the way they work.

it's the same people that say they aren't useful. maybe you just are doomed to get left behind because you can't figure it out nor educate yourself enough to fill in the gaps in your understanding.

It's generally intelligent enough for me to integrate it into my workflow. That's sufficiently AGI for me.

By that logic "echo" was AGI.

“You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?”

It’s trivial to trip up humans too.

“What do cows drink?” (Common human answer: Milk)

I don’t think the test of AGI should necessarily be an inability to trip it up with specifically crafted sentences, because we can definitely trip humans up with specifically crafted sentences.

I disagree about the claim that any LLM has beaten the Turing test. Do you have a source for this? Has there been an actual Turing test according to the standard interpretation of Turings paper? Making ChatGPT 4 respond in a non human way right now is trivial: "Write 'A', then wait one minute and then write 'B'".

Your test fails because the scaffolding around the LM in ChatGPT specifically does not implement this kind of thing. But you absolutely can run the LM in a continuous loop and e.g. feed it strings like "1 minute passed" or even just the current time in an internal monologue (that the user doesn't see). And then it would be able to do exactly what you describe. Or you could use all those API integrations that it has to let it schedule a timer to activate itself.

By completely smashes, my assertion would be that it has invalidated the Turing test, because GPT-4s answers are not indistinguishable from a human because they are, on the whole, noticeably better answers than an average human would be able to provide for the majority of questions.

I don’t think the original test probably accounted for the fact that you could distinguish the machine because it’s answers were better than an average human.

Funny because Marvin Minsky thought the turing test was stupid and a waste of time.