you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 10 months ago (12 children)

As a computer science experiment, making a program that can beat the Turing test is a monumental step in progress.

However as a productive tool it is useless in practically everything it is implemented on. It is incapable of performing the very basic "Sanity check" that is important in programming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    The Turing test says more about the side administering the test than the side trying to pass it

    Just because something can mimic text sufficiently enough to trick someone else doesn't mean it is capable of anything more than that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    We can argue about it's nuances. same with the Chinese room thought experiment.

    However, we can't deny that it the Turing test, is no longer a thought exercise but a real test that can be passed under parameters most people would consider fair.

    I thought a computer passing the Turing test would have more fanfare, about the morality if that problem, because the usual conclusion of that thought experiment was "if you cant tell the difference, is there one?", but now it has become "Shove it everywhere!!!".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Oh, I just realized that the whole ai bubble is just the whole "everything is a dildo if you are brave enough."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    yhea, and "everything is a nail if all you got is a hammer".

    there are some uses for that kind of AI, but very limiting. less robotic voice assisants, content moderation, data analysis, quantification of text. the closest thing to Generative use should be to improve auto complete and spell checking (maybe, I'm still not sure on those ones)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I was wondering how they could make autocomplete worse, and now I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    In theory, I can imagine an LLM fine tuned on whatever you type. which might be slightly better then the current ones.

    emphasis on the might.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Well right now I have autocorrect changing real words for jumbles of letters due to years of myself working with acronyms and autocomplete changing words like both to bitch, for to fuck, etc. due to systems changing less used words for more used words (making the issue worse).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • on top of that, an LLM can check if the sentence makes sense.

    like in the previous post, where I accidentally started with "I'm theory" because I use Swype typing and using an LLM to predict the following tokens for the keyboard to know what I likely trying to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The Turing test becomes absolutely useless when the product is developed with the goal of beating the Turing test.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment