[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...