Hacker News Reader

Comment by zahlman | Hacker News Reader

> 90 of them would have come up with a standard that LLMs today easily clear.

> Now that we're here I think we can have a much clearer vision, and we can notice limitations that we couldn't have articulated before.

Okay, but had you been able to time travel and show them today's LLMs back then, how many of them would have agreed that we had "AGI", and how many would have instantly recognized the limitations they'd failed to articulate?

Because the way that some people talk about current models supposedly "passing the Turing test" makes me think they would have given ELIZA a pass too. It's just so obvious that none of them are convincingly human out of the box.

View on HN

Current models have passed a formally administered Turing test.

If you’ve never participated in a formal Turing test, either as human user or as a responder to the human, you might find it interesting, and possibly humbling.

The creepiest part of Voight-Kampff in Blade Runner was the idea that I'd fail it (not imagining myself as a replicant, but still as a human).

Do you have problems with your iris-contraction muscles and other involuntary muscle reactions? Because that's what Voight-Kampff actually tested. Supposedly, autistics and sociopaths would still pass it (as long as they were otherwise 'normal' humans).

I'd assumed that the VK test in the movie relied on knowing about the specific implanted memories that replicants had.

I'd assumed that Dick just pulled it out of his Bag of Narrative Props. Tolkein he was not.

Replicants could have been implanted with any memories. And if someone was manufacturing illegal replicants why would they be using specific memories that were known ?

It was about judging emotional response and relationship to subtle physical cues.

Any good descriptions of what it feels like to take part in a formal Turing test, and why it is so humbling?

The sibling comment (Bladerunner analogy/nightmare) is a great answer.

I've read reports of the supposed "formally administered Turing test" and walked away with the conclusion that the human judges were idiots.

Eliza would not remotely pass the turing test as turing envisioned in his paper. And frontier labs are not optimizing for 'convincingly human'. If Open AI or Anthropic wanted, frontier models could pass much more human like.

Eliza did pass the Turing test

> how many of them would have agreed that we had "AGI", and how many would have instantly recognized the limitations they'd failed to articulate?

I guess unless the question was loaded it would be like 95% agreeing we have AGI.

> Okay, but had you been able to time travel and show them today's LLMs back then, how many of them would have agreed that we had "AGI", and how many would have instantly recognized the limitations they'd failed to articulate?

Feynman would laugh and say, "i told you so. i'll be at Gianonni's"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com