You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Luke_A_Somers comments on Come up with better Turing Tests - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 10 June 2014 10:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (44)
Tags: turing_test test better_tests turing_tests turing

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 10 June 2014 02:12:25PM *  1 point [-]

"If you want to prove you're human, simply do nothing for 4 minutes, then re-type this sentence I've just written here, skipping one word out of 2".

If they screw it up somehow, they're human?

ETA: yes, not any old failure will do.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 10 June 2014 03:32:44PM 4 points [-]

No. It's just that its something a chatterbot is spectacularly ill-equipped to respond to, unless they've been specifically programmed for these sort of things. It's a meta-instruction, using the properties of the test that are not derived from vocabulary parsing.

Comment author: RobinZ 10 June 2014 03:32:48PM 1 point [-]

The manner in which they fail or succeed is relevant. When I ran Stuart_Armstrong's sentence on this Web version of ELIZA, for example, it failed by immediately replying:

Perhaps you would like to be human, simply do nothing for 4 minutes, then re-type this sentence you've just written here, skipping one word out of 2?

That said, I agree that passing the test is not much of a feat.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit