Turing test isn't actually meant to be a scientific or accurate test. It was proposed as a mental exercise to demonstrate a philosophical argument. Mainly the support for machine input-output paradigm and the blackbox construct. It wasn't meant to say anything about humans either. To make this kind of experiments without any sort of self-awareness is just proof that epistemology is a weak topic in computer science academy.
Specially when, from psychology, we know that there's so much more complexity riding on such tests. Just to name one example, we know expectations alter perception. A Turing test suffers from a loaded question problem. If you prompt a person telling them they'll talk with a human, with a computer program or announce before hand they'll have to decide whether they're talking with a human or not, and all possible combinations, you'll get different results each time.
Also, this is not the first chatbot to pass the Turing test. Technically speaking, if only one human is fooled by a chatbot to think they're talking with a person, then they passed the Turing test. That is the extend to which the argument was originally elaborated. Anything beyond is alterations added to the central argument by the author's self interests. But this is OpenAI, they're all about marketing aeh fuck all about the science.
EDIT: Just finished reading the paper, Holy shit! They wrote this “Turing originally envisioned the imitation game as a measure of intelligence” (p. 6, Jones & Bergen), and that is factually wrong. That is a lie. “A variety of objections
have been raised to this idea”, yeah no shit Sherlock, maybe because he never said such a thing and there's absolutely no one and nothing you can quote to support such outrageous affirmation. This shit shouldn't ever see publication, it should not pass peer review. Turing never, said such a thing.
Each conversation lasted a total of five minutes. According to the paper, which was published in May, the participants judged GPT-4 to be human a shocking 54 percent of the time. Because of this, the researchers claim that the large language model has indeed passed the Turing test.
That's no better than flipping a coin and we have no idea what the questions were. This is clickbait.
On the other hand, the human participant scored 67 percent, while GPT-3.5 scored 50 percent, and ELIZA, which was pre-programmed with responses and didn’t have an LLM to power it, was judged to be human just 22 percent of the time.
The whole point of the Turing test, is that you should be unable to tell if you're interacting with a human or a machine. Not 54% of the time. Not 60% of the time. 100% of the time. Consistently.
They're changing the conditions of the Turing test to promote an AI model that would get an "F" on any school test.
But you have to select if it was human or not, right? So if you can't tell, then you'd expect 50%. That's different than "I can tell, and I know this is a human" but you are wrong...
Now that we know the bots are so good, I'm not sure how people will decide how to answer these tests. They're going to encounter something that seems human-like and then essentially try to guess based on minor clues... So there will be inherent randomness.
If something was a really crappy bot then it wouldn't ever fool anyone and the result would be 0%.
Forget psychotherapy, it can barely understand anything:
> Hello, I am Eliza. I'll be your therapist today.
* Hello! How are you?
> Would you prefer if I were not ?
* Not what?
> Have you asked such questions before?
* No
> You are being a bit negative and that won't help us move forward.
* What are you smoking?
> Perhaps in your fantasies I am smoking?
> Hello, I am Eliza. I'll be your therapist today.
* Hello! How are you?
> Would you prefer if I were not ?
* Not what?
> Have you asked such questions before?
* No
> You are being a bit negative and that won't help us move forward.
* What are you smoking?
> Perhaps in your fantasies I am smoking?
Its rather insulting to the scientist that put a lot of thought into organizing a controlled environment to properly test defined criteria.
lmao. These "scientists" are frauds. 500 people is not a legit sample site. 5 minutes is a pathetic amount of time. 54% is basically the same as guessing. And most importantly the "Turing Test" is not a scientific test that can be "passed" with one weak study.
Instead of bootlicking "scientists", we should be harshly criticizing the overwhelming tide of bad science and pseudo-science.
I don't think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn't mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn't reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.
turing test is designed to see if an AI can pass for human in a conversation.
I'm pretty sure that I could ask a human that question in a normal conversation.
The idea of the Turing test was to have a way of telling humans and computers apart. It is NOT meant for putting some kind of 'certified' badge on that computer, and ...
That's not what LLMs are for.
...and you can't cry 'foul' if I decide to use a question for which your computer was not programmed :-)
Easy, just ask it something a human wouldn’t be able to do, like “Write an essay on The Cultural Significance of Ogham Stones in Early Medieval Ireland“ and watch it spit out an essay faster than any human reasonably could.
The touring test isn't an arena where anything goes, most renditions have a strict set of rules on how questions must be asked and about what they can be about.
Pretty sure the response times also have a fixed delay.
Scientists ain't stupid. The touring test has been passed so many times news stopped covering it. (Till this click bait of course). The test has simply been made more difficult and cheat-proof as a result.
most renditions have a strict set of rules on how questions must be asked and about what they can be about. Pretty sure the response times also have a fixed delay. Scientists ain’t stupid. The touring test has been passed so many times news stopped covering it.
Yes, "scientists" aren't stupid enough to fail their own test. I'm sure it's super easy to "pass" the "turing test" when you control the questions and time.
I feel like we’re at the age of the internet where a strong minority (see: Lemmy users) care deeply about all the ugly exploitative and anti-consumer nature of big tech, but the vast majority of the population just… doesn’t care… and shrugs off (and enables) the continual downward spiral.
That is another matter altogether. Apple has that feature that limits the charge to 80%. Easily done. In fact, as we move to AI, we can create much more intelligent charging schemes that can be tailored to the user.
But when it comes to actual charge times, obviously less is better. Not sure why anyone in their right mind would get upset over lower times and claim that things are fine now. It's like fighting against electricity because you love your typewriter.
Android already does that, no AI required. Some fairly simple math is enough.
The device first charges to 80% and holds there. It also calculates how long it will need to charge from there to full and when it will need to resume charging so that it will hit 100% just before the next alarm goes off. Then it does that.
If it doesn't come at the expense of battery wear, then sure, lower charge time is just better. But that would make phone batteries the only batteries that don't get excessively stressed when fast charging. Yeah, phone manufacturers generally claim that fast charging is perfectly fine for the battery, but I'm not sure I believe them too much when battery degradation is one of the main reasons people buy new phones.
I have no clue how other manufacturers do it (so for all I know they could all be doing it right and actually use slow charging), but Google has a terrible implementation of battery conservation - Pixels just fast charge to 80%, then wait until some specific time before the alarm, then fast charge the rest. Compare that to a crappy Lenovo IdeaPad laptop I have that has a battery conservation feature that sets a charge limit AND a power limit (60% with 25W charging), because it wouldn't make sense to limit the charge and still use full 65W for charging.
That exists. It's called adaptive charging. If you have a modern Pixel: Just set an alarm before plugging the phone in, and it will slow the charge to hit 100% when the alarm goes off. I don't know what other phones have this feature but I'm pretty sure it's just part of Android 14 if the hardware is compatible.
It has been available in some form since Android 11. It's no longer limited to Pixels - my Motorola has a similar feature caller optimised charging, which doesn't even require alarms. LineageOS also has like 3 different ways to limit charging. In short, you definitely do not need root.
It doesn't slow charge, at least not on Pixel 7a. Well, you could argue whether 20W is slow charging, but it's all this phone can do.
It just charges normally to 80%, stops, and then resumes charging about an hour or two before the alarm. And last time I used it, it had a cool bug where if it fails to reach 80% by the point in time when it's supposed to resume charging, it will just stop charging no matter what the current charge level is. Since that experience, I just turned this feature off and charge it in whenever it starts running low.
bgr.com
Hot