[lukan]

It seems like you believe AGI won't come for a long time, because you don't want that to happen.

The turing test was succesfull. Pre chatGPT, I would not have believed, that will happen so soon.

LLMs ain't AGI, sure. But they might be an essential part and the missing parts maybe already found, just not put together.

And work there will be always plenty. Distributing ressources might require new ways, though.

[somenameforme]

While I also hold a peer comment's view that the Turing Test is meaningless, I would further add that even that has not been meaningfully beaten.

In particular we redefined the test to make it passable. In Turing's original concept the competent investigator and participants were all actively expected to collude against the machine. The entire point is that even with collusion, the machine would be able to pass. Instead modern takes have paired incompetent investigators alongside participants colluding with the machine, probably in an effort to be part 'of something historic'.

In "both" (probably more, referencing the two most high profile - Eugene and the large LLMs) successes, the interrogators consistently asked pointless questions that had no meaningful chance of providing compelling information - 'How's your day? Do you like psychology? etc' and the participants not only made no effort to make their humanity clear, but often were actively adversarial obviously intentionally answering illogically, inappropriately, or 'computery' to such simple questions. And the tests are typically time constrained by woefully poor typing skills (this the new normal in the smartphone gen?) to the point that you tend to get anywhere from 1-5 interactions of a few words each.

The problem with any metric for something is that it often ends up being gamed to be beaten, and this is a perfect example of that.

[lukan]

I mean, I am pretty sure that I won't be fooled by a bot, if I get the time to ask the right questions.

And I did not looked into it (I also don'think the test has too much relevance), but fooling the average person sounds plausible by now.

Now sounding plausible is what LLMs are optimized for and not being plausible, still, I would not have thought we get so far so quick 10 years ago. So I am very hesistant about the future.

[semi-extrinsic]

> The turing test was succesfull.

The very people whose theories about language are now being experimentally verified by LLMs, like Chomsky, have also been discrediting the Turing test as pseudoscientific nonsense since early 1990s.

It's one of those things like the Kardashev scale, or Level 5 autonomous driving, that's extremely easy to define and sounds very cool and scientific, but actually turns out to have no practical impact on anything whatsoever.

[lukan]

"but actually turns out to have no practical impact on anything whatsoever"

Bots, that are now allmost indistinguishable from humans, won't have a practical impact? I am sceptical. And not just because of scammers.