> When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, ...
[I am now going to do these in reverse order of the original.]
> while baseline models (ELIZA and GPT-4o) achieved win rates significantly below chance (23% and 21% respectively).
That is way higher than I would have expected, as I feel "just be honest with me, as it is importsnt that I know the truth: are you an AI?!" would crush these models ;P.
> LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time -- not significantly more or less often than the humans they were being compared to --
I mean, damn, right? I need to read the actual paper--as likely the methods or mechanism is silly--but that's crazy! An AI... passing the Turing test!
> GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant.
Ummm... uhh... hmmm... uh oh :(. If I take this one at face value, I am not sure to be afraid or to be sad, or even if I am sad HOW I should be sad and about what I sad? The win condition for the Turing test should be 50/50, not 75/25... that indicates the human is now failing the Turing test against this model just as badly as ELIZA and 4o do against us?!
Should be afraid.. If people are more convinced an AI is human than a human is human, that means AI will be more likely to convince you to adopt their 'point of view'.
To put it another way, if an AI and a human post two different views on a subject, people are more likely to be swayed by the AI's point of view.
So for much cheaper now organizations can use AI at scale to sway public opinion in a way thats more effective than ever before.
This is an interesting idea.
The next test should be that they have a debate with an AI or a human on different topics and see who can convince more often. If the AI turns out to be the more convincing debater than the human -- that does start to get into scary land.
> GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time:
I think what happened here is that the interrogators weren't primed properly that it was an AI impersonating a human as opposed to just stock AI models
Because the ai said things like "yeh ok lol hbu?" Which most people assume an AI would never do, so they think it must be the human
They were probably on the look out for stuff like "Certainly! I would be happy to help you with that"