GPT-4 Passes Turing Test: A New Milestone in AI's Journey Towards Human-Like Intelligence

San Diego, California United States of America
GPT-4 passed the Turing test
Impressive theory of mind capabilities demonstrated
Passed with a score of 54%
Surpassed GPT-3.5 and ELIZA in conversational tasks
GPT-4 Passes Turing Test: A New Milestone in AI's Journey Towards Human-Like Intelligence

In recent developments, OpenAI's advanced language model, GPT-4, has reportedly passed the Turing test. This groundbreaking achievement was revealed in a study conducted by researchers at various institutions. The Turing test is a benchmark for assessing a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human.

GPT-4 demonstrated remarkable performance in conversational tasks, fooling human participants into believing they were interacting with another person 54% of the time during the experiment. This result surpassed both GPT-3.5 and ELIZA, an older AI system that was pre-programmed to respond based on patterns.

The researchers involved in this study also highlighted GPT-4's impressive theory of mind capabilities, as evidenced by its performance in false belief tasks, irony comprehension, hinting tasks, and strange stories. These findings suggest that GPT-4 has a strong understanding of human social interactions and can generate responses that mimic those of a human.

However, it is important to note that the Turing test has limitations as it only assesses conversational abilities and does not account for other aspects of intelligence such as problem-solving or creativity. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the ethical implications of creating AI systems capable of mimicking human behavior so closely.

The origins of GPT-4 can be traced back to OpenAI, a leading research organization in artificial general intelligence (AGI) and machine learning. The model is based on deep learning techniques and has been trained on vast amounts of text data to enable it to generate human-like responses.

Alan Turing, a British mathematician, first proposed the concept of the Turing test in 1950 as a means to determine if a machine could exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. The test has since been refined and adapted to better assess AI capabilities.

As we continue to explore the potential of AI, it is crucial that we remain aware of its limitations and ethical implications while also recognizing its remarkable advancements.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Are there any potential ethical concerns with creating AI systems that can mimic human behavior so closely?
  • Is a passing score of 54% sufficient to prove human-like intelligence?

Sources

87%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Researchers claim GPT-4 passed the Turing test

BGR News Joshua Hawkins Friday, 14 June 2024 22:36
  • Unique Points
    • Researchers claim that OpenAI’s GPT-4 passed the Turing Test
    • GPT-4 was judged human by participants 54% of the time in a study involving 500 people
    • Human participant was judged human 67% of the time
    • ELIZA, a pre-programmed AI, was judged human by participants only 22% of the time
  • Accuracy
    • ]GPT-4 passed the Turing Test[
    • GPT-4 performed exceptionally well in explaining characters’ actions and intentions in the strange stories task.
  • Deception (50%)
    The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by expressing concern over the dangers of AI. The article also engages in selective reporting by only mentioning the percentage of times GPT-4 was judged to be human without providing context about the overall results or any potential limitations of the study.
    • This news, of course, will likely cause more growing concerns over the dangers of AI.
    • Of course, there is plenty of concern over whether or not the Turing test is too simplistic of an approach.
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by citing a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed and stating that the results are intriguing. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by implying that GPT-4 passing the Turing test is cause for concern and will likely lead to growing worries over the dangers of AI.
    • ][author]: The study, which is currently available on the preprint server arXiv, has yet to be peer-reviewed. Still, the results here are intriguing, to say the least.[/]
    • [][author]: Ultimately, this study and GPT-4’s Turing test results highlight just how much AI has changed during the GPT era, as well as how humans are approaching AI.[
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

96%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Stunning AI discovery: GPT-4 often matches or surpasses humans in Theory of Mind tests

PsyPost Eric W. Wednesday, 12 June 2024 10:00
  • Unique Points
    • Large language models (LLMs) are built using deep learning techniques and trained on vast amounts of text data.
    • GPT-4 demonstrated impressive theory of mind capabilities in false belief tasks, irony comprehension, hinting tasks, and strange stories.
    • GPT-4 excelled in irony comprehension task and outperformed human participants by accurately identifying ironic remarks more frequently.
  • Accuracy
    • ]The study primarily focused on comparing the performance of GPT-4, its predecessor GPT-3.5, and another language model known as LLaMA2-70B against human participants[
    • GPT-4 often matched or even surpassed human performance in understanding indirect requests, false beliefs, and misdirection.
    • Despite the promising results, there are distinct differences in how GPT-4 processes and responds to social information compared to humans.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (95%)
    The author, Eric W. Dolan, expresses no overt bias in the article. However, there is a subtle ideological bias towards the advancement of AI technology and its potential to surpass human abilities.
    • Despite the promising results, the study highlighted several limitations. One significant issue is the potential for AI models to rely on shallow heuristics rather than robust understanding.
      • ]impressive theory of mind capabilities, matching or exceeding human performance in some tasks.[
        • It is surprising that these models can engage in such sophisticated social reasoning without the direct embodied experience that typifies human development.
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        92%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        AI chatbot ‘passes Turing test’ that means you can’t tell it apart from human in ‘enormous step forward’, s...

        The Sun Sean Keach Friday, 14 June 2024 13:53
        • Unique Points
          • OpenAI’s GPT-4 chatbot passed the Turing test, fooling humans into thinking they were conversing with other people 54% of the time during a conversation experiment.
          • GPT-4 is a large language model created by OpenAI that powers their ChatGPT app and debuted on March 14, 2023.
          • The Turing test was originally designed by Alan Turing in 1950 to determine if a computer could fool humans into thinking they were conversing with another human.
          • ChatGPT is a language model that can produce text, handle complicated prompts, and learn from things you’ve said. It works like a written dialogue between the AI system and the person asking it questions.
          • Progress in artificial intelligence has led to systems that behave in strikingly humanlike ways, including deepfaked photos and videos, convincing clones of voices, and increasingly advanced chatbots.
          • Alan Turing was a British mathematician who developed the notion of a universal computing machine at Princeton University in 1938. He later joined the Government Codes and Cypher School during World War II to crack the German Enigma code.
          • Turing was born in Maida Vale, London, obtained a PhD in mathematics at Princeton University, and developed the idea of a universal computing machine which would become known as the Turing machine. He was gay at a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain and faced persecution for it.
          • Turing died by suicide or accidental cyanide poisoning in 1954, but was officially pardoned in 2013 due to a campaign backed by MPs and celebrities.
        • Accuracy
          • GPT-4 was judged human by participants 54% of the time in a study involving 500 people.
          • Researchers claim that OpenAI’s GPT-4 passed the Turing Test in a study.
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The author commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization in stating that 'humans can't reliably tell whether they're talking to other real people or not' based on the results of a single test involving only three systems. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the passing of the Turing test as an 'enormous step forward for AI'.
          • > humans can’t reliably tell whether they’re talking to other real people or not.
          • an enormous step forward
        • Bias (95%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        80%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Researchers claim GPT-4 passed the Turing test

        DNYUZ News Unknown BGR Saturday, 15 June 2024 00:54
        • Unique Points
          • GPT-4 was judged human by participants 54% of the time in a study involving 500 people
          • GPT-4 demonstrated impressive theory of mind capabilities in false belief tasks, irony comprehension, hinting tasks, and strange stories.
          • OpenAI’s GPT-4 chatbot passed the Turing test, fooling humans into thinking they were conversing with another human 54% of the time during a conversation experiment.
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (30%)
          The article makes several deceptive statements. First, it states that GPT-4 passed the Turing test based on a study that has not been peer-reviewed. This is selective reporting and sensationalism as it only reports details that support the author's position while omitting important information about the validity of the study. Second, it implies that GPT-4 fooled humans into thinking they were speaking with another human by passing the Turing test, but it fails to mention that raw intellect does not play a large role in fooling humans and instead requires socio-emotional factors. This is an example of emotional manipulation as it creates a sense of fear and concern over AI without providing all necessary context.
          • To check whether or not GPT-4 could pass the Turing test, the researchers involved with the paper asked 500 people to speak with four different respondents. One respondent was human, another was a 1960s-era AI called ELIZA, and then the final two respondents were powered by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.
          • This news, of course, will likely cause more growing concerns over the dangers of AI.
          • According to the paper, which was published in May, the participants judged GPT-4 to be human a shocking 54 percent of the time.
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The author makes an appeal to authority by citing a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed as evidence that GPT-4 passed the Turing test. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating 'this news, of course, will likely cause more growing concerns over the dangers of AI'.
          • The study, which is currently available on the preprint server arXiv, has yet to be peer-reviewed.
          • This news, of course, will likely cause more growing concerns over the dangers of AI.
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication