Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

Bill Gates told a German newspaper that GPT5 wouldn't be much better than GPT4: "there are reasons to believe that we have reached a plateau" [N] (www.handelsblatt.com)

submitted 10 months ago by we_are_mammals@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nemoknows@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

See the trouble with the Turing test is that the linguistic capabilities of the most sophisticated models well exceed those of the dumbest humans.

[–] davikrehalt@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think we can just call the Turing test passed in this case.

[–] redd-zeppelin@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

The Turing test was passed in the 60s by rules based systems. It's not a great test.

Is ChatGPT Passing the Turing Test Really Important? https://youtu.be/wdCzGwQv4rI

[–] Gurrako@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think so. I doubt GPT-4 will be able to convince someone who is trying to determine whether or not the if the think they are talking to is a human.

[–] RdtUnahim@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

There's literally been a website you could go on that opens a chat with either a human or GPT, but you do not know which one, and then you get like 30s to figure it out by chatting with them. Then you need to guess if it was a human or an AI you just talked to. And people get it wrong all the time.

Edit: link to the research that came from that https://www.ai21.com/blog/human-or-not-results

[–] COAGULOPATH@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you have to use a reasonably smart human as a baseline, otherwise literally any computer is AGI. Babbage's Analytical Engine from 1830 was more intelligent than a human in a coma.

[–] AntDracula@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

Ironically for robots and the like to truly be accepted, they will have to be coded to make mistakes to seem more human.

[–] rreighe2@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i kinda agree. the turing should take accuracy and wisdom into account. gpt4 is, much like how gpt3.5 was, very confidently wrong some times. the code or advice it could be giving you could be technically true, but very very stupid to do in practice.

[–] nemoknows@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

“Very confidently wrong sometimes” is how I would describe most of humanity.