This market resolves to the year in which an AI system exists which is capable of passing a high quality, adversarial Turing test. It is used for the Big Clock on the manifold.markets/ai page.
The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.
For proposed testing criteria, refer to this Metaculus Question by Matthew Barnett, or the Longbets wager between Ray Kurzweil and Mitch Kapor.
As of market creation, Metaculus predicts there is an ~88% chance that an AI will pass the Longbets Turing test before 2030, with a median community prediction of July 2028.
Manifold's current prediction of the specific Longbets Turing test can be found here:
/dreev/will-ai-pass-the-turing-test-by-202
This question is intended to determine the Manifold community's median prediction, not just of the Longbets wager specifically but of any similiarly high-quality test.
Additional Context From Longbets:
One or more human judges interview computers and human foils using terminals (so that the judges won't be prejudiced against the computers for lacking a human appearance). The nature of the dialogue between the human judges and the candidates (i.e., the computers and the human foils) is similar to an online chat using instant messaging.
The computers as well as the human foils try to convince the human judges of their humanness. If the human judges are unable to reliably unmask the computers (as imposter humans) then the computer is considered to have demonstrated human-level intelligence.
Additional Context From Metaculus:
This question refers to a high quality subset of possible Turing tests that will, in theory, be extremely difficult for any AI to pass if the AI does not possess extensive knowledge of the world, mastery of natural language, common sense, a high level of skill at deception, and the ability to reason at least as well as humans do.
A Turing test is said to be "adversarial" if the human judges make a good-faith attempt, in the best of their abilities, to successfully unmask the AI as an impostor among the participants, and the human confederates make a good-faith attempt, in the best of their abilities, to demonstrate that they are humans. In other words, all of the human participants should be trying to ensure that the AI does not pass the test.
Note: These criteria are still in draft form, and may be updated to better match the spirit of the question. Your feedback is welcome in the comments.
1,000
3.00
@TiredCliche wait, Kache left Twitter? This is news to me. But I guess I haven’t been on X in a while.
AGI
doesn't even have the agency of a rat
not quite the way an AGI behaves
a very different kind of AGI yaccine has
@TiredCliche we don't even have an AI with the agency of the simple rat! How then is anything we have AGI? It's barely I, let alone G! There's this whole mysterious thing called consciousness which (a) we don't understand and (b) seems crucial to agency. Until we figure out our own solution we won't have AGI 🥼
@Bayesian by "seems crucial to agency" I meant crucial to our agency. We might be able to figure out a different solution for our AGI.
@jim thanks. and
Until we figure out our own solution we won't have AGI
do you mean until we figure out why the human solution to agency of having consciousness works, we won't have agi? or something else
@Bayesian I mean that until humans figure out a solution to agency we won't be able to create something that qualifies as AGI. The annoying tweeter guy says we already have AGI -- jim says, no! we don't even know how to do rat-level AI, let alone human-level.
@IhorKendiukhov OpenAI showed in a tech demo that they had a robot hand that could solve Rubik's Cubes in 2019.
Six years later, nothing.
Would be curious to know other bettors' response to this question:
How do you update on this if GPT-5 (or its equivalent, regardless of name) comes out and isn't a significant qualitative improvement over GPT-4?
And to clarify, I mean "significant" in the colloquial sense, not the statistical sense. Otherwise put: if GPT-5 doesn't feel like a "leap".
@NBAP o3 is practically GPT-5 and if true it is a huge leap already they just need to solve the pricing problem (although even with the pricing there is, many businesses can use it)
Either way there's a lot of progress in the background that they can't quite show
But more importantly, that progress will be used to speed up progress even further.
