11–20 of 112 posts
> Clearly, Eliza is not an AI Sadly the author doesn't elaborate on this. I thought nowadays 'AI' is a synonym for 'algorithm', which would fit ELIZA Is there an accepted definition of the word AI?
> Clearly, Eliza is not an AI Sadly the author doesn't elaborate on this. I thought nowadays 'AI' is a synonym for 'algorithm', which would fit ELIZA Is there an accepted definition of the word AI?
Any algorithm you do not understand.
Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her p…
The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing machines and the theoretical underpinning of computer science that I have ever read. Even if you’re an AI maximalist you should read the third chapter of the book.
> One of the first computer programs that successfully passed the Turing test was Eliza. Created in 1966 by Joseph Weizenbaum, Eliza skillfully emulated the speech patterns of a psychotherapist in its conversations. Why was the Turing test still relevant after this? Didn't this indicate it was very flawed test? Or it was hard to come up with a better test?
A turing test means you enter into two conversations. Then you pick which one was with a computer. If people answer wrong 50% of the time, the computer is indistinguishable, hence it passes. Note that it is not "People get wrong whether their single conversation is talking to an AI >50% of the time" and it is definitely not "sometimes people don't realize they're talking to an AI". In particular people constantly write about the latter because it generates clicks.
I see we have a new entry for the 2024 Lies of Omission award.
The article linked to plainly shows that Eliza only beats ChatpGPT-3.5 and is in the bottom half when ranked against a variety of different system prompts. An excellent ass covering strategy that relies on the reader not checking sources.
An honest author would have actually quoted the article saying:
> GPT-4 achieved a success rate of 41 percent, second only to actual humans.
instead of constructing a deliberately misleading paraphrase.
So the Turing test actually tests not a technology but the level of intelligence of the user. So, we are doomed, it seems.:)
> Clearly, Eliza is not an AI Sadly the author doesn't elaborate on this. I thought nowadays 'AI' is a synonym for 'algorithm', which would fit ELIZA Is there an accepted definition of the word AI?
So the Turing test actually tests not a technology but the level of intelligence of the user. So, we are doomed, it seems.:)
> Interestingly, Eliza still outperforms ChatGPT in certain Turing test variations. I see we have a new entry for the 2024 Lies of Omission award. The article linked to plainly shows that Eliza only beats ChatpGPT-3.5 and is in the bottom half when ranked against a variety of different system prompts. An excellent ass covering strategy that relies on the reader not checking sources. An honest author would have actual…
(Nobody with even the crudest understanding of the principles of Eliza could claim this, and the article clearly demonstrates a detailed understanding. Disclaimer: I wrote the JS implementation linked in the article, many years ago.)
Edit: The question rightfully raised – and answered – by Eliza, which is still relevant today in the context of GPT, is: does the appearance of intelligent conversation (necessarily) hint at the presence of a world model in any rudimentary form?