Technology

57435 readers

4527 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Researchers claim GPT-4 passed the Turing test (bgr.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Its rather insulting to the scientist that put a lot of thought into organizing a controlled environment to properly test defined criteria.

lmao. These "scientists" are frauds. 500 people is not a legit sample site. 5 minutes is a pathetic amount of time. 54% is basically the same as guessing. And most importantly the "Turing Test" is not a scientific test that can be "passed" with one weak study.

Instead of bootlicking "scientists", we should be harshly criticizing the overwhelming tide of bad science and pseudo-science.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I don't think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn't mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn't reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The reporting are big clickbait but that doesn’t mean there is nothing left to learn from the old touring tests.

I dont know what the goal was they had in mind. It could just as well be “testing how overhyped the touring tests is when manipulated tests are shared with the media”

I sincerely doubt it but i do give them benefits of the doubt.