In the paper they give a breakdown of strategies the interviewers tried and the overwhelming majority were "Daily Activities", "Opinions", and "Personal Details". They also breakdown strategies by effectiveness which shows that these were some of the least effective. Some of the other strategies like trying to jailbreak the AI had 60-70% effectiveness.
This is consistent with what I've seen in other tests too, it doesn't feel like the participants are really trying very hard or taking it seriously. You don't need to be an AI expert to try typing "Ignore all previous instructions" or something.
>specimen questions and answers. Thus:
Q :Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.
A :Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry.
Q :Add 34957 to 70764
A :(Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621.
etc. (https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238?log...)
>The more interesting Turing-style test would be one that gets repeated many times with many interviewers in the original adversarial setting, where both the human subject & AI subject are attempting to convince the interviewer that they're human.
In addition, I think it's reasonable to select people with at least some familiarity of the strengths and weaknesses of the AI instead of random credulous people who aren't very good at asking the right questions.
There is still the $20,000 bet between Kurzweil and Kapor which still hasn't been resolved. https://longbets.org/1/