[throwaway8503]

The problem seems to be with defining good tests for intelligence. FWIW, because GPT4 answers have a detectable pattern, they should presumably fail the Turing test.

At some level, intelligence requires logic, rationality, and conceptualization, all of which are topics which have evaded clear definition despite millennia of philosophy directly addressing the issues.

[jameshart]

When you say we need ‘good’ tests for intelligence, you mean ‘tests that humans can pass but machines can’t’.

You’re demanding this because you aren’t comfortable with the implication that a computer can pass our existing tests for intelligence, so you rationalize that with the comforting thought that those tests were not meant to identify intelligence. Tests like the SAT or the bar exam or AP English. Or tests for theory of mind or common sense or logic. Those tests aren’t testing for ‘intelligence’ - they can’t be. Because a computer passed them.

It’s okay. We can make new tests.

[throwaway8503]

Those are a lot of leaps to make about my motivations!

[ekianjo]

Humans also answer in predictable ways so if you place such criteria for a turing test humans will fail to pass it too

[throwaway8503]

I suppose it's a bit of a scotsman argument, but the turing test is to see whether an observer can correctly guess whether the interlocutor is _human_, so by definition the test would pass if the other correspondent was human.

To the point underneath, humans do not answer in as predictable a way as ChatGPT. Your answer, for example, I am confident does not come from ChatGPT.

Edit: if I've horribly mangled the Turing test definition, please let me know

[6510]

I just imagined we could look at the oldest example of intelligence in human history. In contrast with AI, our chauvinism has us tend to pretend even the earliest monkey had it, fish?, insects? etc If it can rub 2 sticks together it gets the diploma.

Turing test is easy, I had 2 chat bots talk about other users in the channel while besides some trigger words ignoring what those other users had to say. The human subjects got angry successfully which means it was important to them.