Turing time is a good idea. But it still has the drawback that the highest possible score is human level intelligence. As you point out, a computer can fail by being too smart. Turing knew this. In his 1950 paper, he gave an example where the computer waited 30 seconds to give the wrong answer to an arithmetic problem.
Remember that Turing was asking if machines could think. So he had to carefully define both what he meant by a computer and what it meant to be intelligent. He was asking a philosophical question. Turing also suggested 5 minutes of conversation to be fooled 30% of the time. We can extend this a bit, but it does not solve the more general problem that we don't know how test intelligence beyond human level. We don't even know what it means to have an IQ of 200. And yet we have computers that are a billion times faster with a billion times more short term memory than humans that we don't acknowledge as smarter than us. Also remember that the goal is not intelligence, but usefulness. The goal is to improve the lives of humans, by working for us, entertaining us, and keeping us safe, healthy, and happy. We cannot predict, and therefore cannot control, agents that are more intelligent than us. On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 5:46 AM Danko Nikolic <danko.niko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mike, > > I like your comment about the usual goal post movers. Let me try to make > something similar. > > There is this idea that the Turing test is not something you can pass once > and for all. If an AI is not detected as the machine at one point, it does > not guarantee that the AI will not reveal itself at a later point in the > conversation. And then the human observer can say "Gotcha!". > > So, there is the idea of "Turing time". How long does it take on average > to reveal that you are talking to AI. There is a difference if it takes 2 > sentences, or it takes 100 sentences, or the AI reveals itself once in > three months. So, Turing time may be useful here as a measure of how much > better the newer version of AI is as compared to the older one. > > Here is more on Turing time: > https://medium.com/savedroid/is-the-turing-test-still-relevant-how-about-turing-time-d73d472c18f1 > > Regards, > > Danko > > Dr. Danko Nikolić > CEO, Robots Go Mental > www.robotsgomental.com > www.danko-nikolic.com > https://www.linkedin.com/in/danko-nikolic/ > -- I wonder, how is the brain able to generate insight? -- > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 8:34 PM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Now time for the usual goal post movers >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 7:49 AM Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It's official now. GPT-4 was judged to be human 54% of the time, >>> compared to 22% for ELIZA and 50% for GPT-3.5. >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08007 >>> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T6510028eea311a76-M4952dd48ad39a5f4c9eec1ea> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T6510028eea311a76-M21e53b544fed195dbbf9b8a1 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
