Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.08007 v1 pith:EK6A6VQC submitted 2024-05-09 cs.HC cs.AI

classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords humantestturinggpt-4elizaintelligencejudgedparticipants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We evaluated 3 systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in a randomized, controlled, and preregistered Turing test. Human participants had a 5 minute conversation with either a human or an AI, and judged whether or not they thought their interlocutor was human. GPT-4 was judged to be a human 54% of the time, outperforming ELIZA (22%) but lagging behind actual humans (67%). The results provide the first robust empirical demonstration that any artificial system passes an interactive 2-player Turing test. The results have implications for debates around machine intelligence and, more urgently, suggest that deception by current AI systems may go undetected. Analysis of participants' strategies and reasoning suggests that stylistic and socio-emotional factors play a larger role in passing the Turing test than traditional notions of intelligence.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Assessing Consciousness-Related Behaviors in Large Language Models Using the Maze Test

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new maze-navigation benchmark for LLMs reports that reasoning models outperform standard ones, but the link from performance gaps to a lack of persistent self-awareness is an overreach.

  2. AI or Human? Understanding Perceptions of Embodied Robots with LLMs

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In an embodied Turing Test with a physical robot, 34 participants could not identify AI versus human control above chance, and human operators were misidentified as AI far more often than the reverse.

  3. Exploring Consciousness in LLMs: A Systematic Survey of Theories, Implementations, and Frontier Risks

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    This survey organizes research on LLM consciousness, separating consciousness from awareness and cataloging theoretical tools, empirical proxies, risks, and open challenges.

Pith tools