zlacker

>>benbre+(OP)
A few years ago, the Turing Test was universally seen as sufficient for identifying intelligence. Now we’re scouring the planet for obscure tests to make us feel superior again. One can argue that the Turing Test was not actually adequate for this purpose, but we should at least admit how far we have shifted the goalposts since then.

>>munchl+rf3
I don't think the Turing Test, in its strictest terms, is currently defeated by LLM based AIs. The original paper puts forward that:

>The object of the game for the third [human] player (B) is to help the interrogator. The best strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. She can add such things as "I am the woman, don't listen to him!" to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks.

Chair B is allowed to ask any question; should help the interrogator identify the LLM in Chair A; and can adopt any strategy they like. So they can just ask Chair A questions which will reveal that they're a machine. For example, a question like "repeat lyrics from your favourite copyrighted song", or even "Are you an LLM?".

Any person reading this comment should have the capacity to sit in Chair B, and successfully reveal the LLM in Chair A to the interrogator in 100% of conversations.