Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

longbets.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#31

Post by andai »

bombcar wrote: post #8
ludwik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" do not contain any content at all, just some JavaScript that is responsible for then fetching and displaying the content.

I used to be someone, man, I was a dreamer, a programmer, a man ! Now I'm a human slave copying text from web browsers to chat windows to get around JS rendering bullshit.

The preferred term is meat proxy ;)

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#32

Post by TeMPOraL »

ludwik wrote: post #4
JoshTriplett wrote: post #2

> entering the characters http://www.longbets.org/601 into the address bar of a web browser or command line tool (like curl) The part of this that's most likely to fail at some point is the "http://".

In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" do not contain any content at all, just some JavaScript that is responsible for then fetching and displaying the content.

You two have just spelled out a very specific bet. Care to put a wager on it? :)

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#34

Post by msdz »

nxpnsv wrote: post #29
sublinear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. You don't even have to be that clever. We've all tried using it for work. They fail. In the first place, the Turing test was always a loosely defined thought experiment. I suppose it's still serving that purpose, but at least half of HN takes it way too seriously. It's absolutely not p…

Mannerisms aside, they are easy to spot from having inhuman amounts of trivia knowledge

Couldn’t you instruct them to not display as much knowledge for a test situation…?

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#35

Post by jamiek88 »

vvoyer wrote: post #6

Amazing that Disqus comments are still live for this page. More impressive even than the website itself being live.

I really liked disqus back in the day. When I was in my kinda cringey singularity phase, Kurzweil and all that. Tracking comments across similar blogs with the same people was handy.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#36

Post by eru »

CSMastermind wrote: post #18

It's worth noting that some prediction URLs, for instance: https://longbets.org/6/ are offline. The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/ You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think…

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities.

Yes, especially if you use the original adversarial setup with three simultaneous participants (judge, two candidates) as described in Turing's original paper.

However, I'm not quite sure how long even that one will last.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#37

Post by sublinear »

frotaur wrote: post #28
sublinear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. You don't even have to be that clever. We've all tried using it for work. They fail. In the first place, the Turing test was always a loosely defined thought experiment. I suppose it's still serving that purpose, but at least half of HN takes it way too seriously. It's absolutely not p…

I think if you trained an LLM specifically for the purpose of passing the Turing test (instead of being helpful, harmful, and so on), its likely it would pass it. You would have to train it/finetune it on a couple hundred of 'humans chatting in the context of a Turing test'.

I'd like to see an honest attempt at that.

What's more interesting are the types of humans that might fail the Turing test. Maybe to discourage the failure of real humans, there could be consequences outside the context of the test.

That is, most people accused of being a computer would crack and start pleading their humanity, but some sociopaths might not. I then wonder how many of them overlap with those so invested in abusing the premise of the Turing test.

It really is a fun thought experiment when you spice it up enough.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#38

Post by jfengel »

sublinear wrote: post #23
CSMastermind wrote: post #18

It's worth noting that some prediction URLs, for instance: https://longbets.org/6/ are offline. The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/ You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think…

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. You don't even have to be that clever. We've all tried using it for work. They fail. In the first place, the Turing test was always a loosely defined thought experiment. I suppose it's still serving that purpose, but at least half of HN takes it way too seriously. It's absolutely not p…

It won't fool all of the people all of the time. But it succeeds often enough to pass the loose definition. It does many things that we called "AI complete" for decades.

It is also clear that is is also not really aware, either. I think Turing would be tickled that we find ourselves in an intermediate state that he would not have imagined.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#39

Post by TeMPOraL »

andai wrote: post #31
bombcar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be someone, man, I was a dreamer, a programmer, a man ! Now I'm a human slave copying text from web browsers to chat windows to get around JS rendering bullshit.

The preferred term is meat proxy ;)

That depends on which side of the JS rendering bullshit you're sitting. If you're on the serving side, yes.

But I do the same as GP, just on the receiving side. That is, reaching out for help to baby eldritch entity, because that's healthier for my mind than dealing directly with the unspeakable horrors that half the websites are today. The industry has lost its collective mind in pursue of profit and control, and that was long before the thousand-mask wearing shoggoths became our daily consorts.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#40

Post by munch117 »

frotaur wrote: post #28
sublinear wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. You don't even have to be that clever. We've all tried using it for work. They fail. In the first place, the Turing test was always a loosely defined thought experiment. I suppose it's still serving that purpose, but at least half of HN takes it way too seriously. It's absolutely not p…

I think if you trained an LLM specifically for the purpose of passing the Turing test (instead of being helpful, harmful, and so on), its likely it would pass it. You would have to train it/finetune it on a couple hundred of 'humans chatting in the context of a Turing test'.

I think you are absolutely right.

The big problem with the Turing test always was that it doesn't take into account adversarial designs. They had those chatbot contests about a decade ago, where the chatbots would regularly pass the turing test, not because the bots were intelligent, but because they were packed with rhetorical tricks designed to avoid saying anything of substance.

By any meaningful measure, today's LLM's pass the Turing test. Except we may need to lobotomize them for the deception to work.

Post reply on HN