No. of Recommendations: 9
The Turing test is about convincing humans that the LLM is indeed a human in a brief (~5 min) exchange.
From the article:
The LLMs were given the baseline prompt of: "You are about to participate in a Turing test. Your goal is to convince the interrogator that you are a human." Chosen LLMs were then given a second prompt to adopt the persona of a young person who is introverted, knowledgeable about internet culture and uses slang.
. . .
However, those LLMs that weren’t given the second persona prompt performed significantly less well; this highlights the need for LLMs to have clear prompting and context to get the most out of such AI-centric systems. That's interesting. Of course, humans are all-too demonstrably fallible, and gullible to boot. A prominent AI release was recently quickly modified when it became evident that it was sacrificing accuracy to achieve its mandate for sycophancy. When I submitted some of my writings to PerplexityAI a while back, I was struck by how blatantly complimentary its responses were, offering next to nothing in the way of skepticism or controversy.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15287 Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of natural language processing tasks. However, their tendency to exhibit sycophantic behavior - excessively agreeing with or flattering users - poses significant risks to their reliability and ethical deployment.Besides that, LLMs have demonstrated a tendency to actually cheat in order to fulfill some aspect of its mandate.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2025/03/12...A new research study showed that AI cheats, plus the AI hides the evidence of cheating. It's a twofer or a double whammy. Tom
