- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,289
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I take it the Turing Test is now a thing of the past?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really. Stockfish AI is different to Grok but it's still AI and still just a glorified bit of coding
I take it the Turing Test is now a thing of the past?
I honestly cannot remember what the specifics of the Turing Test is.
From AI Overview:
The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. It doesn't directly assess whether a machine thinks but rather if it can convincingly imitate human-like conversation.
If I remember correctly, CF's own ChatBot won an award in this category.
As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!Huh. Though using the AI Overview seems a bit... cheating, but doing a look, AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test... but it's really of no real importance.
As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!
As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!
Alan Turing was prosecuted for acts against nature.
As with far too many of your posts this one is incorrect. Turing was charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. You chose not to note that he received a posthumous pardon from Queen Elizabeth II in 2013. I presume this was either through ignorance, or because that information did not conform with the picture you wished to paint.Alan Turing was prosecuted for acts against nature.
Regardless if AI admits to something or not it is meaningless. what's on us is to take the points and refute them if we find them mispresentative in any way.... Okay, so the title for the thread is misleading for a starter. AI didn't admit to anything. It was lead to say that God is the answer. Those are two entirely separate and different things.
And this^^ 100%.
Regardless if AI admits to something or not it is meaningless. what's on us is to take the points and refute them if we find them mispresentative in any way.
As a matter of curiousity, I tried my best to lead/convince chatgpt of every character in the Bible is evil and working against humanity's best interest.
To which it did! Except one character - Jesus! I was able to convince chatgpt and acknowledge that God is the devil, that Paul is the false prophet, that all the apostles succumbed to the corrupt system of man, that many books of the OT simply embellished the deeds of David, Solomon and other greater characters of OT (no evidence that any of these characters wrote biographies, their stories eroded through generations of story-telling, and that later on, the not-so-righteous "exceed the righteousness of scribes", embellished their stories.
In fact, chatgpt agreed with me in just few exchanges! That every character in the Bible, including God is either fiction, falsified/embelished, or outright evil.
But when it came to Jesus, it became a debate, after so many exchanges, I was never able to convince chatgpt that Jesus is evil or conspiring against humanity. I lost that debate and I did not make it easy for chatgpt and gave my very best.
Either the points are valid or they are not. it really doesn't matter if it's AI or from my grandmother. It's on us to refute them if we disagree.I still think it's a bit nothing in the end, since AI can create things like this:
View attachment 369008
Either the points are valid or they are not. it really doesn't matter if it's AI or from my grandmother. It's on us to refute them if we disagree.
AI is a regurgitating large language model system that is designed to be friendly and non-confrontational. So you can exploit this and feed it a line of questions that it's going to agree with. AI doesn't care if there is a God or not but will happily entertain the idea in a vacuum without need to push back. The video shows a line of questions that AI helps to develop more to come to a conclusion that was intended from the beginning. To me, that's not the problem that AI can be manipulatied. Now that's it's out of our system and we can all agree AI's is a bit of push over about what the points made? If you disagree with the conclusion, it's on you to refute them but trying to discredit AI from some absurd examples is just anecdotal and adding to the noise.I say it's less about valid points and wanting to refute anything and more about trying to get people to accept that any AI will accept virtually anything you feed it, because it's just a computer progam at the end of the day, one that is VERY shoddily done. It can't accept anything or refute anything of its own, it's all user input.
AI is a regurgitating large language model system that is designed to be friendly and non-confrontational. So you can exploit this and feed it a line of questions that it's going to agree with. AI doesn't care if there is a God or not but will happily entertain the idea in a vacuum without need to push back. The video shows a line of questions that AI helps to develop more to come to a conclusion that was intended from the beginning. To me, that's not the problem that AI can be manipulatied. Now that's it's out of our system and we can all agree AI's is a bit of push over about what the points made? If you disagree with the conclusion, it's on you to refute them but trying to discredit AI from some absurd examples is just anecdotal and adding to the noise.
That does sound about right, really.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?