Would anyone like to help me do a simulation Turing test? I’ll need two (convincingly-human) volunteers, and I’ll be the judge, though I’m also happy to do or set up more where someone else is the judge if there is demand.
I often hear comments on the Turing test that do not, IMO, apply to an actual Turing test, and so want an example of what a real Turing test would look like that I can point at. Also it might be fun to try to figure out which of two humans is most convincingly not a robot.
Logs would be public. Most details (length, date, time, medium) will be improvised based on what works well for whoever signs on.
(Originally posted a few days ago in the previous thread.)
Typos are a legitimate tell that the hypothetical AI is allowed (and expected!) to fake, in the full Turing test. The same holds for most human behaviours expressible over typed text, for the same reason. If it’s an edge, take it! So if you’re willing to be a subject I’d still rather start with that.
If you’re only willing to judge, I can probably still run with that, though I think it would be harder to illustrate some of the points I want to illustrate, and would want to ask you to do some prep:—read Turing’s paper, then think about some questions you’d ask that you think are novel and expect its author would have endorsed. (No prep is needed if acting as the subject.)
You’re the second sign-on, so I’ll get back to my first contact and try to figure out scheduling.
Would anyone like to help me do a simulation Turing test? I’ll need two (convincingly-human) volunteers, and I’ll be the judge, though I’m also happy to do or set up more where someone else is the judge if there is demand.
I often hear comments on the Turing test that do not, IMO, apply to an actual Turing test, and so want an example of what a real Turing test would look like that I can point at. Also it might be fun to try to figure out which of two humans is most convincingly not a robot.
Logs would be public. Most details (length, date, time, medium) will be improvised based on what works well for whoever signs on.
(Originally posted a few days ago in the previous thread.)
I’d be willing to help but I think I would have to be a judge, as I make enough typos when in chats that it will be obvious I am not a machine.
Great!
Typos are a legitimate tell that the hypothetical AI is allowed (and expected!) to fake, in the full Turing test. The same holds for most human behaviours expressible over typed text, for the same reason. If it’s an edge, take it! So if you’re willing to be a subject I’d still rather start with that.
If you’re only willing to judge, I can probably still run with that, though I think it would be harder to illustrate some of the points I want to illustrate, and would want to ask you to do some prep:—read Turing’s paper, then think about some questions you’d ask that you think are novel and expect its author would have endorsed. (No prep is needed if acting as the subject.)
You’re the second sign-on, so I’ll get back to my first contact and try to figure out scheduling.
k, I’m fine as a subject then.
I’m a convincing human I think