Comment by EduardLev
3 years ago
One comment on the article from what I’ve read so far. The article states that GPT bombed an economics test, but after trying out the first two questions on the test, I think that the test itself is poorly constructed.
The second question in particular drops the potential implicit assumption that only 100 people stand in line each day.
I face this issue in my CS masters program constantly, and would probably have failed this test much the same as GPT did.
That substack article poorly understand's Turing's paper anyway. Cars aren't even mentioned. Chess is briefly mentioned at the end. I wouldn't base any opinions off of it.
Turing's test was not "this computer fooled me over text, therefore it's an AI". It's a philosophical, "we want to consider a machine that thinks, well we can't really define what thinking is, so instead it's more important to observe if a machine is indistinguishable from a thinker." He then goes on to consider counterpoints to the question, "Can a machine think?" Which is funny because some of these counterpoints are similar to the ones in the author's article.
Author offers no definition of "think" or "invent" or other words. It's paragraph after paragraph of claiming cognitive superiority. Turing's test isn't broken, it's just a baseline for discussion. And comparing it to SHA-1 is foolish. Author would have done better with a writeup of the Chinese room argument.
At what point did the human test maker fail or the AI?
The absurdity in all these debates is how quickly people move the goalposts around between "artificial human intelligence" and "artificial omniscience (Singularity)" when trying to downplay the potential of AI.