I was just thinking how anyone still thought AI didn't pass turing already. There's been literal papers proving average people cannot tell reliably.

AFAIK people refer to this paper [0]. I think it only proves very little, because a typical conversation they studied looks like this:

Q: do you like doing psych studies and why?

A: theyre chill, easy money tbh

Q: yeah same. Could you give me an easy cupcake recipe off the top of your head?

A: nah i just get the box mix lol

Q: haha fair enough, i couldn't either. Last question, what's your favorite weird animal?

A: axolotl, theyre weirdly cute

And that's the whole thing. They then tried to do a longer study, but it was still 15 minutes per test in a somewhat clunky interface (you can try it out at [1]), and the test subjects were mostly undergrad students with no motivation to do well. Less than half tried any sort of trick question. ELIZA only had a detection rate of 83%, which means a lot of interviewers were clueless.

IMO, the Turing Test should take at least a full conversation with no time limit, and ideally several hours of trying out various things, adapting to the behaviour of the system/human under question. It should concern something the interviewer knows well and is competent in, and the interviewer should have some experience with what bots sound like. (Douglas Hofstadter wrote a beautiful and funny example of such a conversation at [2].) Only then do you have some idea how adversarially robust the system is. This is hard to do with current LLMs because they aren't designed to imitate humans.

[0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674 (now published at https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2524472123). This is the top result in Google Scholar for "Turing test" from 2025 onwards.

[1]: https://turingtest.live/

[2]: "Dull Rigid Human meets Ace Mechanical Translator" (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/once-and-future-tur... or alternative access methods thereof)

>There's been literal papers proving average people cannot tell reliably.

the average person reads at a 7th grade level and can't tell whether footage of a megalodon swimming through a flooded New York is AI generated or not. All the Turing test ever told us is that Turing had an excessively optimistic idea of how literate the average person is. I have a conversation like this every time a new version comes out and they always go the same way:

https://pastebin.com/NjfCLSXa

Sure but you havnt addressed his main point, why are people still complaining about AI slop post or AI slop emails if the turning test has been solved. Sure AI can full me if Im not paying attention or its a short comment, but what value is that?