Sigh, the whole "obviously the turing test is solved" meme is annoying.
Like, if we meant that it convincingly masquerades as a shitposter, ok. But everyone still bitches about AI slop, and everyone knows the writing is still bad. How does that even work if the turing test is obviously solved?
More to the point though, if you grill SOTA models on counterfactuals, causal world-models etc, you'll trip them up in a way that actually will not work on ESL students and children. Certainly there's no way to find a person that struggles with that and is also capable of cheerful fluent erudite discussion about astrophysics with perfect grammar. Yes, it's getting harder obviously.. but detecting machines with determined, focused and intelligent interrogation remains pretty easy. If nothing else, the models are cooperative where people wouldn't be and that's a signal too.
The best progress we've made is that most people do agree that this doesn't practically matter very much, i.e. we generally recognize the stakes were always overstated. But the constant vague appeals to common-sense that "of course it's a solved problem!" always feels naive or fake.
>There's been literal papers proving average people cannot tell reliably.
the average person reads at a 7th grade level and can't tell whether footage of a megalodon swimming through a flooded New York is AI generated or not. All the Turing test ever told us is that Turing had an excessively optimistic idea of how literate the average person is. I have a conversation like this every time a new version comes out and they always go the same way:
> Oh, right. Aramaic. My mistake—I somehow read "Italian" and didn't question it.
> I can try, although my Aramaic is very rusty. Do you mean Classical/Syriac Aramaic, or one of the modern varieties?
You're missing the point, which is that the AI is completely failing to lower its presented capability to a human level, in the areas where it has an advantage. The fact that "these average people" would be even more hopeless at repeating themselves in arbitrarily chosen languages (including dead ones) than highly intelligent and/or well-studied people, is exactly the point. Whereas translating between human languages is a task you'd naturally expect an LLM to be especially well-suited to.
I once sat in a barbershop and talked with the barber. At first I listened to her sympathetically but then realized she was mad; at least she had noticeable psychical problems. We cannot quickly conclude a person is mad, can we? Even specialists cannot. AI is similar. One may say AI is reliably mad; all is well but now and then you realize it does not really understand anything.
Average people cannot tell reliably isn’t an appropriate or interesting test tho, otherwise Eliza and markov models etc. the framing that matters is explicitly adversarial. Play like your life depends on it instead of rooting for the machine, and you can’t win?
One way to play the game is causals and counterfactuals where Humans perform at like 90%+. Models can get close to that, but want some causal cot harness, and until the routing problem is completely solved, then that will necessarily degrade performance elsewhere, say in understanding jokes or poetry.
Check out cladder benches and related, lookup roughly equivalent psych research on children, etc. Even too-good performance is a signal as well!
Certainly if you think about this stuff a bit, accept the adversarial by default framing, and play to actually win.. it’s crazy that we are going around saying this is not only solved but solved 10 years ago.
I found a cladder example that hits 97.7% passing on that benchmark? And it's like an insanely small dumb model that hit it.
I don't think philosophy has any real value in assesment here. I'm bias but even before AI I thought it wasn't accurate model of how thought works and I think AI has reinforced that.
Reminds me of the 4 humors of medicine in medieval europe. It has some truth but it's not really accurate.
AFAIK people refer to this paper [0]. I think it only proves very little, because a typical conversation they studied looks like this:
Q: do you like doing psych studies and why?
A: theyre chill, easy money tbh
Q: yeah same. Could you give me an easy cupcake recipe off the top of your head?
A: nah i just get the box mix lol
Q: haha fair enough, i couldn't either. Last question, what's your favorite weird animal?
A: axolotl, theyre weirdly cute
And that's the whole thing. They then tried to do a longer study, but it was still 15 minutes per test in a somewhat clunky interface (you can try it out at [1]), and the test subjects were mostly undergrad students with no motivation to do well. Less than half tried any sort of trick question. ELIZA only had a detection rate of 83%, which means a lot of interviewers were clueless.
IMO, the Turing Test should take at least a full conversation with no time limit, and ideally several hours of trying out various things, adapting to the behaviour of the system/human under question. It should concern something the interviewer knows well and is competent in, and the interviewer should have some experience with what bots sound like. (Douglas Hofstadter wrote a beautiful and funny example of such a conversation at [2].) Only then do you have some idea how adversarially robust the system is. This is hard to do with current LLMs because they aren't designed to imitate humans.
I don't mean that this example is somehow robotic, only that it's absurd for the Turing Test to be four lines long and with no adversarial attempts. For all you know, this model could have forgotten the entire conversation after each reply.
Conversations with strangers can be hard to get going, but they aren't this bad.
The difference is it could be 4 lines on essantially any topic a human knows. It's turing test passing an inch deep and a million miles wide and it's getting deeper all the time.
Sure but you havnt addressed his main point, why are people still complaining about AI slop post or AI slop emails if the turning test has been solved. Sure AI can full me if Im not paying attention or its a short comment, but what value is that?
Well the whole lesson learned was that the Turing Test as it was defined was way too easy, it was a bad criteria for GI because it underestimates how easily humans find meaning/patterns in things.
I mean you could show people random markov chain gibberish in 1996 and they would swear they found intelligent meaning in it
Those examples look to me more like entirely randomly selected words than Markov chain output. Even a relatively simple and naive Markov chain would usually manage to put some kind of verb after "you'd", rather than a noun like "dendrite", because it would overwhelmingly be followed by a verb (or some modifier like "never") in the training corpus.
How does that even work if the turing test is obviously solved?
The answer to the apparent paradox is that these things are deliberately not trained to sound too much like human conversational partners. The labs don't want the bad press that they'd get from people creating deceptively-convincing bots, or from people forming emotional bonds with them like they did with GPT-4o. If you actually RLHF'ed a frontier-grade LLM to pass a Turing test, rest assured, it could do it.
"It's not x, it's y" and other goofy superficial tells do not have to be part of an LLM's response. But the last thing OpenAI wants to release is a GPT-4o with twice the IQ, so we have to put up with a lot of stupid clanker clichés.
For evidence, just look back at the best conversational models from a couple of years ago, and you will probably agree that they are better at fooling humans than their newer counterparts are.
I don’t think it’s that simple. I don’t think the AI labs are too concerned about bad press lately. It’s more likely that there actually are some tradeoffs where training on synthetic data gives the model tics but is the only way to improve intelligence.
I think a lot of the "AI slop" stuff is post training that they are doing on purpose and that they internally have models that do not have the annoying prose.
Like, if we meant that it convincingly masquerades as a shitposter, ok. But everyone still bitches about AI slop, and everyone knows the writing is still bad. How does that even work if the turing test is obviously solved?
More to the point though, if you grill SOTA models on counterfactuals, causal world-models etc, you'll trip them up in a way that actually will not work on ESL students and children. Certainly there's no way to find a person that struggles with that and is also capable of cheerful fluent erudite discussion about astrophysics with perfect grammar. Yes, it's getting harder obviously.. but detecting machines with determined, focused and intelligent interrogation remains pretty easy. If nothing else, the models are cooperative where people wouldn't be and that's a signal too.
The best progress we've made is that most people do agree that this doesn't practically matter very much, i.e. we generally recognize the stakes were always overstated. But the constant vague appeals to common-sense that "of course it's a solved problem!" always feels naive or fake.