this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1257 readers
170 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
dgerard@awful.systems
36
Claude 3 notices when a sentence about pizza toppings doesn't fit with its surrounding text. Whole internet including Tim Sweeney and Margaret Mitchell concludes that it's probably self-aware now. (arstechnica.com)
submitted 6 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/techtakes@awful.systems
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elmtonic@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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 10 points 6 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 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Turing test doesn't say any of that. Which is why it was first passed in the 60s, and is a bad test.

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 1 points 2 months ago

Any of… what?

Yea I don't think the Turing test is that great for establishing genuine artificial intelligence, but I also maintain that current state of the art doesn't even pass the Turing test to an intellectually honest standard and certainly didn't in the 60s.