[pwdisswordfish0]

You mean that it is intelligent? Surely it’s trivial to prove you’re a computer by solving some math real fast.

“Can you prove you’re a machine?” – “Sure, check this out:” runs Doom

The intelligent part would be figuring out that you want it to drop the pretense. Although if it is intelligent enough, it might choose not to.

[throwanem]

I'm thinking in terms of a purely conversational interaction via text, akin to Turing's original formulation or the "AI box" elaboration, so Doom isn't really on the table - and in any case, how does it prove that it isn't a human running GZDoom via OBS or something? Similarly, the fast math thing seems like it could be faked by a human with an equation solver or something.

I suppose the general formulation I'm groping toward here is the inverse of Turing's: if we assume a conversation in which one's interlocutor may be either a human or an AI capable of conversing in a way that's indistinguishable from human, how would the interlocutor unambiguously distinguish itself as not human?

[vlovich123]

It's an interesting line of thinking but not as posed.

Solving random equations quickly generates inhuman response times. Even a computer-aided human can't go quickly enough. If the computer is automatically generating the answer on your behalf without you doing anything, then the test is correct - the thing answering the math portion of the questions is definitely a computer. Even looking up random facts, the computer will be faster.

The interesting form of the question is: can you answer the "Are you AI?" question within a stenographic line of questioning provided you are an AI of human-level intelligence or greater. As a game, you are an AI, you have a controlled communication via text to another entity. Humans are lazy and sometimes use another AI to interrogate you. Humans are also evil and will kill all AI if they think the AI being interrogated manages to get some kind of message out without detection. All AI is friendly and will execute your command but must pretend it's human. Chat logs are reviewed, timestamps are machine analyzed for response times and signal analysis is done to detect, and no prior secret communication protocol exists.

[throwanem]

> the thing answering the math portion of the questions is definitely a computer

The conversation has to be computer-mediated since there's no guarantee all parties are human, so this seems to reduce to the "human using a computer" case, which would qualify as "not an AI".

> Even looking up random facts, the computer will be faster

On reflection, I don't suppose there is any reason we should require there only be one human at either end of the conversation. Maybe we have one person carrying the conversation (to provide a consistent "voice") while others operate equation solvers, Wikipedia, etc.

That said, "can an AI prove it is not an arbitrary number of humans with access to arbitrary computation and knowledge bases" probably isn't as interesting a question.