Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing Tests for Vision and Language Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13087v2
• Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:37:13 GMT
• Title: Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing Tests for Vision and Language Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap
• Authors: Mengmi Zhang, Giorgia Dellaferrera, Ankur Sikarwar, Caishun Chen, Marcelo Armendariz, Noga Mudrik, Prachi Agrawal, Spandan Madan, Mranmay Shetty, Andrei Barbu, Haochen Yang, Tanishq Kumar, Shui'Er Han, Aman Raj Singh, Meghna Sadwani, Stella Dellaferrera, Michele Pizzochero, Brandon Tang, Yew Soon Ong, Hanspeter Pfister, Gabriel Kreiman,
• Abstract summary: We benchmark current AIs in their abilities to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks. Experiments involved 549 human agents plus 26 AI agents for dataset creation, and 1,126 human judges plus 10 AI judges. Results reveal that current AIs are not far from being able to impersonate humans in complex language and vision challenges.
• Score: 45.6806234490428
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI algorithms increasingly participate in daily activities, it becomes critical to ascertain whether the agents we interact with are human or not. To address this question, we turn to the Turing test and systematically benchmark current AIs in their abilities to imitate humans in three language tasks (Image captioning, Word association, and Conversation) and three vision tasks (Object detection, Color estimation, and Attention prediction). The experiments involved 549 human agents plus 26 AI agents for dataset creation, and 1,126 human judges plus 10 AI judges, in 25,650 Turing-like tests. The results reveal that current AIs are not far from being able to impersonate humans in complex language and vision challenges. While human judges were often deceived, simple AI judges outperformed human judges in distinguishing human answers from AI answers. The results of imitation tests are only minimally correlated with standard performance metrics in AI. Thus, evaluating whether a machine can pass as a human constitutes an important independent test to evaluate AI algorithms. The curated, large-scale, Turing datasets introduced here and their evaluation metrics provide new benchmarks and insights to assess whether an agent is human or not and emphasize the relevance of rigorous, systematic, and quantitative imitation tests in these and other AI domains.

Related papers

• AI-Driven Agents with Prompts Designed for High Agreeableness Increase the Likelihood of Being Mistaken for a Human in the Turing Test [0.0]
  GPT agents with varying levels of agreeableness were tested in a Turing Test. All exceeded a 50% confusion rate, with the highly agreeable AI agent surpassing 60%. This agent was also recognized as exhibiting the most human-like traits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T23:12:49Z)
• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content. We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API Invocation Capabilities [48.922660354417204]
  We propose Automated Dynamic Evaluation (AutoDE) to assess an assistant's API call capability without human involvement. In our framework, we endeavor to closely mirror genuine human conversation patterns in human-machine interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:34:12Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Human Heuristics for AI-Generated Language Are Flawed [8.465228064780744]
  We study whether verbal self-presentations, one of the most personal and consequential forms of language, were generated by AI. We experimentally demonstrate that these wordings make human judgment of AI-generated language predictable and manipulable. We discuss solutions, such as AI accents, to reduce the deceptive potential of language generated by AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T03:18:56Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Human Evaluation of Interpretability: The Case of AI-Generated Music Knowledge [19.508678969335882]
  We focus on evaluating AI-discovered knowledge/rules in the arts and humanities. We present an experimental procedure to collect and assess human-generated verbal interpretations of AI-generated music theory/rules rendered as sophisticated symbolic/numeric objects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T06:03:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.