[vph]

This is not a Turing test. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I bet that none of this was drawn by a computer. Most likely, those that were supposedly "drawn by computers" were pictures drawn by humans but applied various type of filtering (e.g. those by the deep learning algorithms).

[Excavator]

Well, yea. It says as much on the page:

"one is painted by a human and another one is generated by artificial intelligence based on a photo and a style of a painter."

I find this to be easily "beatable" by simply judging which one is most likely to have its origin in a photo (vanity, and such) with a fallback on the one with a lot of repeating patterns.

[mannykannot]

I would say it is not a Turing test primarily because it does not involve a dialog between the examiner and the subjects.

I don't think programs written to imitate a craft, or even to learn to imitate a craft from examples, count as AI, no matter how impressive.

[nbrempel]

What about a photograph with filters applied to it? Does that count?

[pqhwan]

Think what would really count as a "visual turing test" is if the computer-generated images were really "generated" by a computer, not rendered from a photo. Still, it's an interesting exercise in how much the rendering can make the photo feel "opinionated"—as if you can sense the painter behind it; that's the criteria I used for choosing, but I got a 7/10.

[versteegen]

> what would really count as a "visual turing test"

I disagree - nobody would say drawings/paintings (by humans) based on photos or observations by eye are less legitimate than scenes completely imagined.

[lazaroclapp]

How about the following: The examiner can provide any picture of their choosing to two subjects A and B, where one is a human and the other a machine. At the end of a reasonable period, both subjects respond to the examiner simultaneously with one drawing each, derived from that same picture. In creating each drawing, A and B are both trying to convince the examiner that they are human. The examiner then should identify which of the two subjects is a computer and which is human. To better reflect the traditional Turing test, the examiner should be able to repeat this process with different pictures (keeping the identities of A and B unknown, but fixed) before making their determination.

Interestingly, this is a Turing test that, when applied purely to humans, doesn't require said humans to share a common language.

[versteegen]

That's a nice protocol.

I have to quibble though that the Turing test is meant to be a test of intelligence, and this sort of task seems pretty different, although it may actually be visual-AI-hard (to invent a new term). So may deserve a different name.

[lazaroclapp]

You can call it a test of human-level aesthetic sensibility if you'd think a highly intelligent alien species would be unlikely to share our aesthetics. Although, arguably, a highly intelligent alien would be able to understand our aesthetics to the point where they pass the test regardless...

[vph]

I think you are teasing me, but my answer would be: no, it doesn't count. The Turing test is about "understanding". The filtering of those images has no understanding of what the images are about.

[darkmighty]

The Turing test is not about understanding, it's simply about distinguishability. The idea is measuring understanding is hard, but it's easy to try to distinguish the production of a machine in several parameters by doing a blind test. So a computer may actually "understand more" of something but be blatantly computer-like (by being much better than a human could ever produce) -- a chess expert may identify a top level chess AI that way -- and thus fail the Turing test. So it's more of a sufficient but not necessary intelligence test.

Those photo modifications kind of fit into that theme: if you can't distinguish the filters from real art, they passed an indistinguishability test.