I see AI pass the turning test all the time, since humans are constantly falsely being accused of being an AI.

It doesn't mean that AI got good, just that humans are thinking other humans are AI, which is a form of passing the test.

The adversarial version with humans involved is actually easier to pass because of this - because real actual humans wouldn't pass your non adversarial version.

▲

wat10000 an hour ago | parent [-]

In one study, GPT-4.5 was judged to be human 73% of the time, which means that the actual human was judged to be human only 27% of the time. More human than human, as Tyrell would say.

Edit: folks, the standard Turing test involves a computer and a human, and then a judge communicating with both and giving a verdict about which one is the human. The percentages for the two entities being judged will add up to exactly 100%. That's how this test was conducted. Please don't assume I'm a moron.

	▲	dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The implication would be that GPT-4.5 was not judged to be human 27% of the time. You can't determine how often humans were judged correctly as humans from that data point.
	▲	Melatonic an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Those stats dont necessarily line up that way. Do you have a link?