We (collectively, as humanity) have given quite a lot of thought to recognizing artificial conscious beings. We may not have a consensus, but at least we have a debate.
Now, let's imagine that a company like those that own ChatGPT, OpenAI, etc announced that it developed strong AI. To be more precise, let's say that the claim is "self conscious and self aware artificial being".
Judging by the latest trends, such technology would probably start as closed beta, then would be paid.
Now, such a model allows for a simple yet effective fraud - you put humans on the other side of the cable. It would require work on knowledge sharing (if you say X on one machine, another machine should, at some point, be aware of X too), but that is a matter of good automation and engineering. The strategy of slowly growing the userbase at a controlled pace would be familiar to the public, yet very helpful to the scam.
What is the "reverse Turing test"? How do we prove that the agent claiming to be strong AI is in fact human?
Initially the latter sentence was phrased as "How do we disprove that the other end of the conversation is artificial?", but I realized that it's not the same as the question I really wanted to ask.
- as stated before, the claim is "self conscious and self aware artificial being"
- all the communications happen over an internet page
- there is a phase where the product is totally internal to the company, then another where it is used by a very limited set of users, then a phase when users need to pay to use the product (conduct conversations)
- fact propagation is present (fact stated in one session is at some point "available to the product" in another session)
- fact propagation time grows with the number of parallel sessions (it would make sense that such a distributed entity would delegate agents to conduct conversations and periodically merge them into its core; on another hand that could also indicate a delay in data propagation in a system that guides the humans acting as AI sessions)
- the agent that is claimed to be conscious passed the Turing test
- this constraint is raised in response to this answer
- the aforementioned Turing test was conducted in its simplest form (as above, remote communication sessions, one-on-one, not group chats), but on rather large number of people (1000+ with statistically adequate number of artificial agents); constraints that are considered to be standard (e.g. "no politics") were applied
- long story short, intuitively, you'd say "it passed a serious Turing test" in a casual conversation; this topic would not be purely philosophical, it would have serious real-world / law-forming consequences
- the experiment we're looking for is not necessarily constrained in the same way as the Turing test; it means that even if during Turing test we said "no politics", we still can do reasoning based on response to "what do you think of Trumps ideas on economy?" to establish if we're talking to a human or not
- ... (TBD in discussion, if needed)