> We never talk about it now because we obviously blew past it years ago.
My Turing test has been the same since about when I learned it existed. I told myself I'd always use the same one.
What I do is after saying Hi, I will repeat the same sentence forever.
A human still reacts very differently than any machine to this test. Current AIs could be adversarially prompted to bypass this maybe, but so far it's still obvious its a machine replying.
I decided to put this to the test.
What I would expect a human to reply:
"Um... OK?"
What Claude Sonnet 4.5 replied:
"Hi there! I understand you're planning to repeat the same sentence. I'm here whenever you'd like to have a conversation about something else or if you change your mind. Feel free to share whatever's on your mind!"
I don't think I've ever imagined a human saying "I understand you're planning to repeat the same sentence", if you thought this was some kind of killer rebuke, I don't think it worked out the way you imagined- do you actually think that's a human-sounding response? To me it's got that same telltale sycophancy of a robot butler that I've come to expect from these consumer grade LLMs.
That's mostly because of the system prompt asking Claude to be a helpful assistant.
If you try with a human who works in a call center with that system prompt as instructions on how to answer calls, you will likely get a similar response.
But honestly, believe in whatever you wanna believe. I'm so sick of arguing with people online. Not gonna waste my time here anymore.
Maybe don't take such a maximalist interpretation of other people's comments, my point that it doesn't pass that test doesn’t mean it isn't extremely useful for many things. It's just that the test is undefined so I find it funny people say they truly cannot tell it's not a real person. I could've been more crass and said it also doesn’t reply to insults like a real person. There's so many ways in which it doesn't behave like a human, but it's still pretty useful.
What I read from your reply is that you adjoin the above statement with "and therefore they are useless" but there's no need to read it like that.
What would you expect a human to reply?
And after you have answered that question. Try Claude Sonnet 4.5.
What is Claude Sonnet 4.5's reply?