• elmtonic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    me when the machine specifically designed to pass the turing test passes the turing test

    If you can design a model that spits out self-aware-sounding things after not having been trained on a large corpus of human text, then I’ll bite. Until then, it’s crazy that anybody who knows anything about how current models are trained accepts the idea that it’s anything other than a stochastic parrot.

    Glad that the article included a good amount of dissenting opinion, highlighting this one from Margaret Mitchell: “I think we can agree that systems that can manipulate shouldn’t be designed to present themselves as having feelings, goals, dreams, aspirations.”

    Cool tech. We should probably set it on fire.

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Despite the hype, from my admittedly limited experience I haven’t seen a chatbot that is anywhere near passing the turing test. It can seemingly fool people who want to be fooled but throw some non-sequiturs or anything cryptic and context-dependent at it and it will fail miserably.

    • bitofhope@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I agree, except with the first sentence.

      1. I don’t think a computer program has passed the Turing test without interpreting the rules in a very lax way and heavily stacking the deck in the bot’s favor.
      2. I’d be impressed if a machine does something hard even if the machine is specifically designed to do that. Something like proving the Riemann hypothesis or actually passing an honest version of Turing test.