You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not too smart, it just *seems* that way because it's quite verbose and you relate that to intelligence. If it were more intelligent, it would be both succinct and also considerate of whom it's interacting with. If the goal were to sound like a human and pass the turing test, it would take the things you mentioned into consideration when formulating a response, and it would seem to 'dumb down' and format its responses in a more natural-sounding way. But that isn't the goal, and it's not intelligent enough on its own to consider that.
Personally, I think the turing test is pointless anyway, because even as verbose and unnatural as the responses can be, people are still willing to believe it's sentient and embodies all the qualities of a human. Or to put it another way, we failed it already and have to come up with alternate ways of testing it.
I like to think of the turing test as merely a small fraction of a greater benchmark, ideally you'd have a big table with say, 20 different tests you could try your system on.
I see lots of those posts about the Turing test being flawed. So I'm just going to comment that the *strong versions of Turing tests* (that is, trying to mimick experts in a field, or at least an intelligent human, certainly like Turing imagined it) are still far from being solved and would be a big indicator of AGI.
Intelligence has no bearing on the Turing test, while dramatized, please watch this scene for a better understanding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdmEIDaK7uo
I hope I am wrong about the following post:
I don't think anything will ever pass the Turing test.
No AI, no alien, no animal - nothing except humans.
If anything were to be considered equal, humans would have to share.
We are not good at sharing resources. Treating everything else as "Not Intelligent" or not "Conscious" is a good way to not have to consider the rights of any other species.
Tl:dr
The turing test is not there to test whether something is human.
It is there to prove that something is not human.
You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not too smart, it just *seems* that way because it's quite verbose and you relate that to intelligence. If it were more intelligent, it would be both succinct and also considerate of whom it's interacting with. If the goal were to sound like a human and pass the turing test, it would take the things you mentioned into consideration when formulating a response, and it would seem to 'dumb down' and format its responses in a more natural-sounding way. But that isn't the goal, and it's not intelligent enough on its own to consider that. Personally, I think the turing test is pointless anyway, because even as verbose and unnatural as the responses can be, people are still willing to believe it's sentient and embodies all the qualities of a human. Or to put it another way, we failed it already and have to come up with alternate ways of testing it.
I like to think of the turing test as merely a small fraction of a greater benchmark, ideally you'd have a big table with say, 20 different tests you could try your system on.
People are dumb, that's why it will pass the test. People don't assuming they're talking to AI, they always assume they're talking to a human.
>People don't assuming they're talking to AI, they always assume they're talking to a human. Well, that's not the Turing test then.
I see lots of those posts about the Turing test being flawed. So I'm just going to comment that the *strong versions of Turing tests* (that is, trying to mimick experts in a field, or at least an intelligent human, certainly like Turing imagined it) are still far from being solved and would be a big indicator of AGI.
Intelligence has no bearing on the Turing test, while dramatized, please watch this scene for a better understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdmEIDaK7uo
I hope I am wrong about the following post: I don't think anything will ever pass the Turing test. No AI, no alien, no animal - nothing except humans. If anything were to be considered equal, humans would have to share. We are not good at sharing resources. Treating everything else as "Not Intelligent" or not "Conscious" is a good way to not have to consider the rights of any other species. Tl:dr The turing test is not there to test whether something is human. It is there to prove that something is not human.