zlacker

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?

>>garden+(OP)
Did you perhaps mean to say not distinguishable?

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

>>garden+(OP)
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.

>>NoOn3+a5
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.

>>ben_w+N5
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

>>ben_w+N5
I just noticed that when I ask really difficult technical questions, but for which there is an exact answer, It often tries to answer plausibly, but incorrectly instead of answering "I don't know". But over time, It becomes smarter and there are fewer and fewer such questions...

>>NoOn3+x7
Have you tried setting a custom instruction in settings? I find that setting helps, albeit with weaker impact than the prompt itself.

>>aidama+f5
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

>>NoOn3+a5
Maybe It's because It was never rewarded for such answers when It was learning.

>>ben_w+Q7
It's not a problem for me. It's good that I can detect chatGPT by this sign.

>>aidama+f5
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).

>>NoOn3+a5
Of course it does.

>>NoOn3+a5
Some humans also never respond "I don't know" even when they don't know. I know people who out-hallucinate LLMs when pressed to think rigorously

>>ben_w+N5
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

>>peigno+mt
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.

>>NoOn3+x7
It doesn't become smarter except for releases of new models. It's an inference engine.

>>NoOn3+a5
It absolutely does that (GPT-4 especially), and I have hit it many times in regular conversations without specifically asking for it.