The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

100-Year Plan: $38,000 (hosting and domain)

100-Year Domain: $2,000 (one-time purchase, no annual renewals)

What's more interesting are the types of humans that might fail the Turing test. Maybe to discourage the failure of real humans, there could be consequences outside the context of the test.

That is, most people accused of being a computer would crack and start pleading their humanity, but some sociopaths might not. I then wonder how many of them overlap with those so invested in abusing the premise of the Turing test.

It really is a fun thought experiment when you spice it up enough.

The big problem with the Turing test always was that it doesn't take into account adversarial designs. They had those chatbot contests about a decade ago, where the chatbots would regularly pass the turing test, not because the bots were intelligent, but because they were packed with rhetorical tricks designed to avoid saying anything of substance.

By any meaningful measure, today's LLM's pass the Turing test. Except we may need to lobotomize them for the deception to work.

However such good conversational agents would still have benefits, and i would be curious how far the approach of building a model that’s nice to talk to can take you, as opposed to the current generation of all-knowledgable helpful assistants.

Terminator (1984 film) had a scene showing that in a future 2009, humans would use dogs to try to sniff out whether a robot passing for a human is secretly a machine.[1]

In our real world 2026, there are no humanoid machines that can complete basic generic tasks, like carrying a tray across the stage and holding it for 30 seconds.[2] They move slowly and badly (probably from an LLM like neural network doing very few frames per second of correction and analysis), and are nowhere near lifelike.

When they don't need a body to pass for a human, such as typing online, they do a bit better.

We can tell them apart from humans. As you say, they have stylistic quirks. And you mention that they're easy to spot because they come trained with inhuman amounts of trivial knowledge.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/s/0qUCVPYgjt

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/s/t6ZV0yhgEe

PARRY is my spirit animal.

> In empirical evaluations conducted during the 1970s, experienced psychiatrists proved unable to reliably distinguish PARRY's responses from those of actual patients diagnosed with paranoid disorders, achieving only 48 percent accuracy, a figure statistically indistinguishable from random guessing.

https://ai.miraheze.org/wiki/PARRY

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/areas...

The reason for the mistake is irrelevant here. All that matters is that you catch the agent saying something that basically no human would, especially in this type of game.

That shouldn't be an issue. The very act of taking the car to car wash contains the information that it is with you and you are at your home. Doesn't this prove that LLMs don't actually think?

And no, I don't think humans would make the same errors, the key reason for this failure mode is that there are some facts of human day to day life that are so mundane that they are virtually never written about, thus making them an ideal combination of universal human experiences but out of distribution for the LLMs.

There is also the problem with how easy it is to back them into a corner where they start acting in very unnatural ways. This would arise when challenging them on their humanity and most people would pick up on it and craft their challenges around it until it fell apart because that is how people work in such adversarial situations.

You can be reasonably sure about your friends, as they're sufficiently like you to leave little doubt. I disagree but can understand you thinking that LLMs are intelligent, but unless by conscious you mean something like being self-aware, I don't understand how you could conclude LLMs are conscious. For example, although LLMs can tell you what colours things are, how the visual system distinguishes colours in humans and other animals, and what wavelength mixtures different colours are, they don't know what it's like to see colours because they cannot see colours. All the input of LLMs is text, and you can't describe, in words, what it's like to see colours, or hear sounds, or feel pain, in a way that someone incapable of these sensations would understand. And to remove any remaining doubt, there was an expert in colour vision (Knut Nordby) who, as he could not see colours because his retinas lacked cones, could not imagine what it's like to see colours, despite all his knowledge.

They're not going to get any cleverer than they are now. In October we'll finally be done with heuristics or central databses of https-first websites used by the various browsers or the half a dozen of headers that you must dance around to get the upgrade to work securely and reliably. They will just default to https first.

https://blog.google/security/https-by-defau/

Yes this is about Chrome, but all others will follow.

Even if you interpreted the bet generously to allow for a browser to render the content using JavaScript, if I understand the bet correctly, the condition of working with a command-line tool like curl would fail.