FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 1653 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#https#turing#test#still#bet#longbets#different#redirect#org#clever
Discussion (45 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/
You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities.
https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think covid leaked from a lab or not.
Yes, especially if you use the original adversarial setup with three simultaneous participants (judge, two candidates) as described in Turing's original paper.
However, I'm not quite sure how long even that one will last.
They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts.
(Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)
If you used a smaller corpus, followed a different kind of fine tuning routine with rather normal conversation patterns, and wrote a different base prompt, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be possible to come up with a very particular personality, so to speak.
You don't even have to be that clever. We've all tried using it for work. They fail.
In the first place, the Turing test was always a loosely defined thought experiment. I suppose it's still serving that purpose, but at least half of HN takes it way too seriously. It's absolutely not proof of <engagementbait> endorsed by Alan Turing himself.
You would have to train it/finetune it on a couple hundred of 'humans chatting in the context of a Turing test'.
However such good conversational agents would still have benefits, and i would be curious how far the approach of building a model that’s nice to talk to can take you, as opposed to the current generation of all-knowledgable helpful assistants.
The big problem with the Turing test always was that it doesn't take into account adversarial designs. They had those chatbot contests about a decade ago, where the chatbots would regularly pass the turing test, not because the bots were intelligent, but because they were packed with rhetorical tricks designed to avoid saying anything of substance.
By any meaningful measure, today's LLM's pass the Turing test. Except we may need to lobotomize them for the deception to work.
What's more interesting are the types of humans that might fail the Turing test. Maybe to discourage the failure of real humans, there could be consequences outside the context of the test.
That is, most people accused of being a computer would crack and start pleading their humanity, but some sociopaths might not. I then wonder how many of them overlap with those so invested in abusing the premise of the Turing test.
It really is a fun thought experiment when you spice it up enough.
It is also clear that is is also not really aware, either. I think Turing would be tickled that we find ourselves in an intermediate state that he would not have imagined.
One of my first web projects involved a music forum and I have been keeping the URLs alive for 24 years now:
https://www.gnoosic.com/discussion/
I feel like I owe it to the people who participated to keep it online forever. Also as a document of history.
The part of this that's most likely to fail at some point is the "http://".
Now I'm a human slave copying text from web browsers to chat windows to get around JS rendering bullshit.
> A 301 redirect from www.longbets.org/601 to a different URL containing that text would also fulfill those conditions.
I assume this would cover the HTTP->HTTPS redirect scenario.
In particular, the automatic upgrade feature in modern browsers is based on several heuristics rather than explicit configuration like HSTS, so there's always a bit of room for breakage there. For example, they don't even check if the server returns a 301 redirect, which can be problematic if the server wants to redirect to HTTPS on a different host/port or make some changes to the path.
They're not going to get any cleverer than they are now. In October we'll finally be done with heuristics or central databses of https-first websites used by the various browsers or the half a dozen of headers that you must dance around to get the upgrade to work securely and reliably. They will just default to https first.
https://blog.google/security/https-by-defau/
Yes this is about Chrome, but all others will follow.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46139686
That’s more than most will do, sure, but it doesn’t seem like it saves you from a broken link if you forget to add a specific redirect or miss it during a mass format change. Am I missing something?
For the heck of it I confirmed "http://www.longbets.org/601" does in fact result in a 301 redirect to "https://longbets.org/601/". I suspected they might have used a 302.
Which is not, in my opinion, how things should be hosted on the Web.
Freenet had a different approach, even back in the early days (two decades ago). I interviewed Ian Clarke about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWrRqUkJpMQ
I wrote about it for years: https://community.intercoin.app/t/who-pays-for-storage-nfts-...
And recently I built Safecloud to be different: https://safebots.github.io/Safecloud/
I bet there's complexity to the topic, but I am sure you could put it into a few words instead of just leaving a hook for others to click on.
1. Data retention isn't infinite. If the source disappears from the network, peers will prune it shortly. This is exponentially true in our multimedia-heavy world.
2. Despite 1, if you actually want to delete something you published, you can't. Absolutists will see this as a good thing. Normal people will see this as a problem.
3. Peer-to-peer doesn't work in a mobile-first world, and not enough people will host nodes as a hobby. If all website publishers/hosters have to host a node, then we're just back to the current model but with extra steps.