[atulvi]

This is a wonderful idea for an online game. But this can be improved. One human should be assigned impostor pre game. He should be awarded points if he successfully deceives the other human. Overall quality of responses will improve and it will be harder to tell them apart.

[sltkr]

This isn't the correct solution though. I just lost to a human who acted like this:

Them: Glad to hear that! Tell me more.

Me: About what?

Them: Glad to hear that! Tell me more.

Me: OK, you're a bot.

Them: Glad to hear that! Tell me more.

Me: So we're just going to run down the clock?

(They disconnect. I guess bot. I'm wrong.)

The point is, this isn't really an interesting way to deceive people. It's easy to behave like an idiot, it's hard to sound intelligent. Humans and AIs can both act stupid. Only humans can act intelligently (so far). There needs to be an incentive to act intelligently. Otherwise the site owner could make their “AI” only ever say “Glad to hear that! Tell me more.” and then the human partner could always say ”Glad to hear that! Tell me more.” and it would be impossible for the human interlocutor tell which is which.

To avoid this failure mode, you have to provide players incentives to prove that they are human. Like in the game Mafia/Werewolf. Imagine you have a chat room that is filled with 3 humans and 3 bots. People chat for a while, then everyone votes on a person to kick from the room. This would be more interesting because now the humans will be eager to prove to each other that they are humans. The bots can spam "Glad to hear that! Tell me more." but that will just get them kicked.

[schoen]

> To avoid this failure mode, you have to provide players incentives to prove that they are human.

This is also more aligned with Turing's original idea.

I agree with you that it's easier for a human to imitate a (bad or inadequate) bot. You could also, for example, run your own copy of Eliza and proxy the conversation to that, or even memorize some of Eliza's rules and literally apply them by hand in your conversation. You would basically always convince people that you're a bot.

Since the human role is understood to be the harder one to implement, having everyone attempt to play it is the most incentive-compatible solution to a contest: it encourages all participants to best demonstrate their abilities instead of concealing them.

[xk_id]

I think it’s very easy for a human to lie and behave like a chatbot. And the only defence against that is the incentive for both parties to focus on testing each other efficiently.

[vikingerik]

This is a hilarious inversion of the Turing test. It's supposed to be about the computer trying to act as intelligently as a human. Instead, we've got the humans gaming the system by acting as dumb as an AI.

[wkdneidbwf]

100%. Of 7 games I played, 4 were bots and only once did a bot not use strictly correct capitalization and punctuation.

[stevage]

Interesting, my experience was not that at all. 1 game, of which the bot's second response was:

> ok so which thing do i buy im confused.. i want the rose gold iphone pleaseee help meee!

[scrps]

That is kind of interesting, I got a batch of bots at first that were using correct capitalization and punctuation and then later got a batch of bots that composed like teenagers including typos.