• chevron_right

      If AI is making the Turing test obsolete, what might be better?

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Friday, 15 December - 00:16 · 1 minute

    A white android sitting at a table in a depressed manner with an alchoholic drink. Very high resolution 3D render.

    Enlarge (credit: mevans )

    If a machine or an AI program matches or surpasses human intelligence, does that mean it can simulate humans perfectly? If yes, then what about reasoning—our ability to apply logic and think rationally before making decisions? How could we even identify whether an AI program can reason? To try to answer this question, a team of researchers has proposed a novel framework that works like a psychological study for software.

    "This test treats an 'intelligent' program as though it were a participant in a psychological study and has three steps: (a) test the program in a set of experiments examining its inferences, (b) test its understanding of its own way of reasoning, and (c) examine, if possible, the cognitive adequacy of the source code for the program," the researchers note .

    They suggest the standard methods of evaluating a machine’s intelligence, such as the Turing Test , can only tell you if the machine is good at processing information and mimicking human responses. The current generations of AI programs, such as Google’s LaMDA and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, for example, have come close to passing the Turing Test, yet the test results don’t imply these programs can think and reason like humans.

    Read 22 remaining paragraphs | Comments

    • chevron_right

      1960s chatbot ELIZA beat OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 in a recent Turing test study

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Friday, 1 December - 21:27 · 1 minute

    An illustration of a man and a robot sitting in boxes, talking.

    Enlarge / An artist's impression of a human and a robot talking. (credit: Getty Images | Benj Edwards)

    In a preprint research paper titled "Does GPT-4 Pass the Turing Test?", two researchers from UC San Diego pitted OpenAI's GPT-4 AI language model against human participants, GPT-3.5, and ELIZA to see which could trick participants into thinking it was human with the greatest success. But along the way, the study, which has not been peer-reviewed, found that human participants correctly identified other humans in only 63 percent of the interactions—and that a 1960s computer program surpassed the AI model that powers the free version of ChatGPT.

    Even with limitations and caveats, which we'll cover below, the paper presents a thought-provoking comparison between AI model approaches and raises further questions about using the Turing test to evaluate AI model performance.

    British mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing first conceived the Turing test as "The Imitation Game" in 1950 . Since then, it has become a famous but controversial benchmark for determining a machine's ability to imitate human conversation. In modern versions of the test, a human judge typically talks to either another human or a chatbot without knowing which is which. If the judge cannot reliably tell the chatbot from the human a certain percentage of the time, the chatbot is said to have passed the test. The threshold for passing the test is subjective, so there has never been a broad consensus on what would constitute a passing success rate.

    Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

    • chevron_right

      Google places engineer on leave after he claims group’s chatbot is “sentient”

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Monday, 13 June, 2022 - 14:01

    Google places engineer on leave after he claims group’s chatbot is “sentient”

    Enlarge (credit: Yuchiro Chino | Getty Images)

    Google has ignited a social media firestorm on the nature of consciousness after placing an engineer on paid leave who went public with his belief that the tech group’s chatbot has become “sentient.”

    Blake Lemoine, a senior software engineer in Google’s Responsible AI unit, did not receive much attention last week when he wrote a Medium post saying he “may be fired soon for doing AI ethics work.”

    But a Saturday profile in the Washington Post characterizing Lemoine as “the Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life” became the catalyst for widespread discussion on social media regarding the nature of artificial intelligence. Among the experts commenting, questioning or joking about the article were Nobel laureates, Tesla’s head of AI and multiple professors.

    Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments