Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08007 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866929342103158784 |
|---|---|
| author | Jones, Cameron R. Bergen, Benjamin K. |
| author_facet | Jones, Cameron R. Bergen, Benjamin K. |
| contents | We evaluated 3 systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in a randomized, controlled, and preregistered Turing test. Human participants had a 5 minute conversation with either a human or an AI, and judged whether or not they thought their interlocutor was human. GPT-4 was judged to be a human 54% of the time, outperforming ELIZA (22%) but lagging behind actual humans (67%). The results provide the first robust empirical demonstration that any artificial system passes an interactive 2-player Turing test. The results have implications for debates around machine intelligence and, more urgently, suggest that deception by current AI systems may go undetected. Analysis of participants' strategies and reasoning suggests that stylistic and socio-emotional factors play a larger role in passing the Turing test than traditional notions of intelligence. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2405_08007 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test Jones, Cameron R. Bergen, Benjamin K. Human-Computer Interaction Artificial Intelligence We evaluated 3 systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in a randomized, controlled, and preregistered Turing test. Human participants had a 5 minute conversation with either a human or an AI, and judged whether or not they thought their interlocutor was human. GPT-4 was judged to be a human 54% of the time, outperforming ELIZA (22%) but lagging behind actual humans (67%). The results provide the first robust empirical demonstration that any artificial system passes an interactive 2-player Turing test. The results have implications for debates around machine intelligence and, more urgently, suggest that deception by current AI systems may go undetected. Analysis of participants' strategies and reasoning suggests that stylistic and socio-emotional factors play a larger role in passing the Turing test than traditional notions of intelligence. |
| title | People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08007 |