[oldputput]

It appears you don’t believe any pass the test. I’m more trying to ask of someone who does believe they pass, ‘how can you?’ To me it’s one of those things that‘s so painstakingly obvious that the inherent limitations of words comes into play when trying to describe it.

[ben_w]

They can pass or fail depending on how they're configured.

The default configuration is easy to spot.

It's easy to change that configuration and make them hard to spot.

The default style, that is easy to spot, is also a style that actual real humans use, leading to false positives. I myself have been accused of being a LLM here on this site, just from my style.

[oldputput]

I guess I disagree. The ‘easy to spot’ never goes away, regardless of configuration, so long as the conversation continues. In the spirit of this site, good-faith intellectual curiosity, I will refrain from continuing this conversation in a manner which would reveal your nature as a human or not, and remove the hint of taste of that palpable irony from my mouth (I joke) but it wouldn’t add anything to the discussion anyway. But it would be trivial. Am I making any sense?

[ben_w]

Sure, I've had similar conversations myself, where there seemed to be some kind of disconnect.

Hope you get something more useful from someone else :)

[oldputput]

Do you believe any LLMs pass the test? You personally?

[ben_w]

Are you asking if they fool me, or if I believe they fool people in general?

The former, how would I tell? I'd have to find someone whose writing style I don't know to be the human comparison, in order to blind myself.

The latter: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

[oldputput]

Yes, you personally. Do you believe you could be fooled by any LLM, unable to ascertain if the words came a human or not? By simply asking questions and getting responses?