310
The Turing Test, enshrined by the public and media as THE test of machine intelligence, really isn't.
(www.thenewatlantis.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
310 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
60473 readers
4105 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Chinese room experiment only demonstrates how the Turing test isn’t valid. It’s got nothing to do with LLMs.
I would be curious about that significant body of research though, if you’ve got a link to some papers.
No, it doesn't render the Turing Test invalid, because the premise of the test is not to prove that machines are intelligent but to point out that if you can't tell the difference you either must assume they are or risk becoming a monster.
Remind me. What became of Turing, a man who saved untold British lives during WW2?
Okay but in casual conversation I probably couldn't spot a really good LLM on a thread like this, but on the back end that LLM is completely incapable of learning or changing in any meaningful way, its not quite a chinese room as previously mentioned but it's still a set model that can't learn or understand context, even with infinite context memory it could still only interact with that data within the confines of the original model.
e.g. I can train the model to understand a spoon and a fork, it will never come up with that idea of a spork unless I re-train it to include the concept of sporks or directly tell it. Even after I tell it what a spork is it can't infer the properties of a spork based on a fork or a spoon without additional leading prompts by me.
Interestingly, infinite context memory is functionally identical to learning.
It seems wildly different but it's the same as if you have already learned absolutely everything that there is to know. There is absolutely nothing you could do or ask that the infinite context memory doesn't already have stored response ready to go.
Except for still being incapable of responding to anything not within that context memory, todays models have zero problem solving skills; or to put it another way they're incapable of producing novel solutions to new problems.
Well yeah, because they're not infinite. ;)
Hence the reason it's not a real intelligence (yet) even a goldfish can do problem solving without first having to be equipped with god like levels of prior knowledge about the entire universe.
Current LLM's aren't that stupid. They do have limited learning. You give it a question, tell it where it's wrong and it will remember and change all future replies with the new information you give it. You certainly can't ask a goldfish to write a c program that blinks an led on a microcontroller. I have used it to get working programs to questions that were absolutely nowhere on the internet. So it didn't just copy/paste something found.
The premise of the test is to determine if machines can think. The opening line of Turing's paper is:
I believe the Chinese room argument demonstrates that the Turing test is not valid for determining if a machine has intelligence. The human in the Chinese room experiment is not thinking to generate their replies, they're just following instructions - just like the computer. There is no comprehension of what's being said.