• ProcurementCat@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    11 months ago

    The fundamental flaw of the Turing test is that it requires a human. Apparently, making a human believe they are talking to a human is much easier than previously thought.

    • philomory@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      11 months ago

      Much easier, in fact; Eliza could pass the Turing test in 1966. Humans are incredibly eager to assess other things as being human or human-like.

      • Rentlar@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        Go on.

        And what makes you think that?

        Mhm. Tell me more.

        “Human or human-like”. Can you tell me more about that?

        How do you feel about it?

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The real Turing test requires an expert doing the test, not just some random easily impressed person.

        The ELIZA-style bots work very well on the later kind, as the bot is just repeating your own text back at you with some grammatical remixing, e.g. you say “I am afraid of horses”, bot says “Why do you say you are afraid of horses?”. You can have very long conversation with yourself that way, as the bot contributes nothing to the discussion. It just provides enough plausible English to keep you talking. Meanwhile when you have an expert (or really just any person with a little bit of a clue) test ELIZA, the bot falls completely apart within just three lines of dialog. The bot is incredible basic and really can’t do anything by itself, it completely depends on the user to provide all the content of the conversation.

    • Ferk@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      A test that didn’t require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily.

      I can’t imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn’t require a human.

        • bedrooms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Bro, humans literally don’t have that capability (that’s the presumption here). Or are you saying that many of us don’t have better consciousness than AIs? I might agree with that!

        • Ferk@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what’s a human and what’s an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)… which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a “human” verdict on.

          So I don’t think that would work very well, it’ll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs.