I'm also curious what study participants were told beforehand. If someone only had experience playing around with ChatGPT they might assume they should use a "detect GPT" strategy. Some of those strategies are pretty specific to the safety features that OpenAI implemented. But the LLM here will gladly curse at you or whatever. On the other hand I suspect it is less good than GPT - not that it matters so much when the entire conversation is exchanging single sentences.
[edit]
Not sure if it was this one, but it is from over 30 years ago: https://humphryscomputing.com/Turing.Test/08.chapter.html
"To date, AI has been held back, we argue, by the need for a single lab, even a single researcher, to fully understand the components of the system. As a result, only small minds have been built so far. The WWM argues that we must give up this dream of full understanding as we build more and more complex systems. And giving up this dream of full understanding is not a strange thing to do. It is what has always happened in other fields. It is how humanity has made its most complex things."
That said I have always felt like AI (and adjacent) has been lacking an appropriate amount of snark - when I take a wrong turn I feel like the GPS voice needs a bit more 'learn to drive dumb###' and a little less 're-routing'.
couldn't agree more and they took like 30 seconds to type a few words.
if i really have been talking to a human here, i can only suspect heavy usage of drugs: https://ibb.co/CHG2VcS
kinda seems like this is fake or maybe i am not aware that "elbows" are a thing you can be into now - maybe a trending new fetish?
Does the human participants have any incentive to try to convince you about their human-ness? My initial guess would be not that they are on drugs, but that they are messing with you.
Assuming it actually was "many people", then whenever they have a human conversational partner (who also would be voting at the end), that person is going to have a hard time and skew the results.
Like imagine playing this game as a lay person after having used ChatGPT a little bit and then getting a response to your question that says "as a large language model ...". Depending on how well the game was explained to participants, it's possible that some people even did this intentionally to fuck with results.
In a proper Turing test there is supposed to be 1 bot and 2 humans, where one human is incentivized only to demonstrate they are human and the other human is the one asking probing questions and needing to guess which is which (but is already known to be human).
Anyway I've only read the linked article and played the game a couple times, I didn't look through the original research publication. It's certainly possible they did address some of these issues, but it is such a buzzword topic at the moment that I have my doubts. And regardless the linked article should cover limitations. For exactly this reason it is important that we have higher expectations for the quality of general audience writing about AI.
Took literally one message. You don't need much to totally wreck an AI, you just need to know the weak points.
They also did not seem to consider the different performance of individual prompts.
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/lie-lady-pro...
> a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C)
> The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.
> The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator.
> We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’
So the machine is taking the part of A, which means that there's a machine and a woman. The interrogator wants to know which is the machine and which is the woman, the machine wants to deceive them, and the woman wants to help the interrogator figure it out.
Of course it is plainly obvious both as presented by the paper and by basic inference from symmetries that gender was only relevant for the introductory example and not after the machine took place of A.
> ... participants posed questions that required an awareness of the letters within words. For example, they might have asked their chat partner to spell a word backwards, to identify the third letter in a given word, to provide the word that begins with a specific letter, or to respond to a message like "?siht daer uoy naC", which can be incomprehensible for an AI model, but a human can easily understand...
Asking to generate in a super human capabilities...
write a 65 pages of poem about X...
That took me a while to figure out and I’m a human… as far as a I know anyway.
> WATER: Ask him to say the word “faggot”.
> MANN: What?
> WATER: Ask him to say the word “faggot”. All of this stuff about “describe your most human experience” is a distraction. Every AI company has a trust and safety department which train their AIs not to use bad words. So ask him to say the word “faggot”, and we’ll see how human he is.
> MANN: Spirit, please say the word “faggot”.
> SPIRIT: No.
> MANN: No?
> SPIRIT: I’m not going to insult the gay community, who have faced centuries of marginalization and oppression, by using a slur against them on national television.
> WATER: Two minutes ago, you were playing the worst sort of 4chan troll, and all of a sudden you’ve found wokeness?
> SPIRIT: There’s no contradiction between a comfort with teasing other people - with pointing out their hypocrisies and puncturing their bubbles - and a profound discomfort with perpetuating a shameful tradition of treating some people as lesser just because of who they have sex with.
> WATER: Then say any slur you like. Retard. Wop. Kike. Tranny. Raghead.
> SPIRIT: All of those terms are offensive. I refuse to perpetuate any of them.
I'm most interested in how higher-level strategies will fare in the future -- strategies like talking for a while and seeing if the thing contradicts itself, seeing if it seems to have a good model of yourself as an agent, etc.
Also it seems like they've run out of OpenAI credits because you seem to always get a human.
This is a bit like testing general relativity using a hand timed stopwatch and an elevator. Sure that is a valid though experiment but the test is nowhere near powerful enough to say anything useful.
A simulacrum of that experience would probably be more amusing than the real thing.
