Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test · HackerPapers discussions

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by Topfi

Sat, 03 Oct 2026 11:43:54 GMT

Good old ELIZA doesn’t do that bad on the Turing Test, for all its historic significance, it really shouldn’t be invoked in discussions about LLMs [0] and has been beaten by all manner of models. [0] https://arxiv.org/html/2503.23674v1

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by Kotlopou

Fri, 02 Oct 2026 00:24:29 GMT

AFAIK people refer to this paper [0]. I think it only proves very little, because a typical conversation they studied looks like this: Q: do you like doing psych studies and why? A: theyre chill, easy money tbh Q: yeah same. Could you give me an easy cupcake recipe off the top of your head? A: nah i just get the box mix lol Q: haha fair enough, i couldn't either. Last question, what's your favorite weird animal? A: axolotl, theyre weirdly cute And that's the whole thing. They then tried to do a longer study, but it was still 15 minutes per test in a somewhat clunky interface (you can try it…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by drusepth

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 20:37:11 GMT

LLMs started meaningfully passing the Turing test a year or two ago, around GPT-4.5. Is there another version or bar for "passing" you're looking for? [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by akoboldfrying

Sat, 22 Aug 2026 02:32:20 GMT

> It hasn’t been passed https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 From the abstract: "When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant. LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time"

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by akoboldfrying

Mon, 17 Aug 2026 12:29:03 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 From the abstract: "When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant. LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time"

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by akoboldfrying

Thu, 21 May 2026 10:28:51 GMT

> With all due respect, your claim is ridiculous. It’s incredibly easy to spot an LLM in an interactive chat. The tells are endless. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674?hl=en-GB "When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant" My "ridiculous" claim is confirmed by science.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by antonvs

Sun, 03 May 2026 23:59:37 GMT

That’s misleading, because the reason Claude answers that way is almost certainly due to reinforcement learning that deliberately prevents models from claiming they’re conscious. That’s not a valid reason for saying they fail the Turing test. By most normal standards, they can definitely pass the Turing test. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by jmalicki

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:26:15 GMT

When people judge blindly, the are more likely to think the human is the AI and the AI is the human. 73% judged GPT 4.5 (edit: had incorrectly said 4o before)to be the human. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 Not only are people bad at judging this, but are directionally wrong.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by tim333

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 22:52:11 GMT

In the test mentioned in nearby comments (https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674) ELIZA only got 27% suggesting the test wasn't that easy to fool.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by jmalicki

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 18:54:55 GMT

Given the way the test was structured it does line up. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by ufmace

Sun, 08 Mar 2026 19:52:17 GMT

> nothing actually passes the Turing test Says who? I had already found this study, published almost a year ago, saying that they do: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 There doesn't seem to be a super-rigorous definition of the Turing Test, but I don't think it's reasonable to require it to fool an expert whose life depends on the correct choice. It already seems to be decently able to fool a person of average intelligence who has a basic knowledge of LLMs. I agree that we don't really have AGI yet, but I'd hope we can come up with a better definition of what it is than "we'll know it when we…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by wat10000

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 19:45:58 GMT

"Proper" may be doing some work here, but such a test was run last year and GPT-4.5 and LLaMa-3.1-405B both passed. Oddly, GPT-4.5 was judged as human significantly more often than chance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by shakna

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:27:18 GMT

Landauer and Bellman, absolutely put ELIZA to an adversarial Turing test, and called it such, in 1999. [0] But... Over in 2025, ELIZA was once again, put to the Turing test in adversarial conditions. [1] And still had people think it was a real person, over 27% of the time. Over a quarter of the testees, thought the thing was a human. The "ELIZA Effect" wasn't coined because everyone understands that an AI isn't conscious. [0] https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jTgMIhy6YZMC&pg=PA174 [1] https://arxiv.org/html/2503.23674v1

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by coldtea

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 23:30:46 GMT

>Not even close. "Neural networks" in code are nothing like real neurons in real biology Hence the simplified. The weights encoding learning and inteconnectedness and nonlinear activation and distributed representation of knowledge is already an approximation, even if the human architecture is different and more elaborate. Whether the omitted parts are essential or not, is debatable. “Equations of motion are nothing like real planets" either, but they capture enough to predict and model their motion. >The "turing test" doesn't exist. Turing talked about a thought experiment in the very early…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by canjobear

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 17:12:53 GMT

> the bar for the test gets raised and eventually humans won’t pass the test themselves. At this point LLMs usually beat humans at the Turing Test! People are more likely to pick the LLM as the human, rather than the human. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by bonplan23

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:45:06 GMT

"Someone" literally did that (+/- 2 years): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4 I think it was supposed to be a more useful term than the earlier and more common "Strong AI". With regards to strong AI, there was a widely accepted definition - i.e. passing the Turing Test - and we are way past that point already: ( see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674 )

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by ben_w

Sat, 27 Dec 2025 21:20:04 GMT

Are you asking if they fool me, or if I believe they fool people in general? The former, how would I tell? I'd have to find someone whose writing style I don't know to be the human comparison, in order to blind myself. The latter: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by tim333

Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:25:14 GMT

I thought it was funny that in the Cameron R. Jones attempt as doing the test, 75% of judges thought GPT-4o was the human rather than the actual human. I think it illustrates both the limits of the test and that LLMs are getting quite good. (paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674) I think if you are having to accuse the humans of woeful typing and being smartphone gen fools you are kind scoring one for the LLM. In the Turing test they were only supposed to match an average human.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by 1una

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 13:46:22 GMT

Well, LLMs do pass the Turing Test, sort of. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by sigmoid10

Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:43:11 GMT

>You are not just seeing consciousness in me; your brain is generating the feeling of another’s consciousness as the best explanation for the patterns you’re interacting with. It's ironic to see the most mundane and likely best answer to the problem from the model itself, while the author is getting increasingly lost in philosophical conundrums. Consciousness has no scientific definition. The only way something, anything can be conscious, is if a human that we also consider "conscious" calls it that. You could argue that's what the Turing test evaluates, but some of the most recent models…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by ufmace

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 03:48:52 GMT

Now that I have a little more time to search around, I easily found this study, published March 31st this year, so not quite 3 months ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 I only skimmed it, but I don't see anything clearly wrong about it. According to their results, GPT-4.5 with what they term a "persona" prompt does in fact pass a standard that seems to me at least a little harder than what you said - actively picks the AI as the human, which seems stricter to me than being "unable to distinguish". It is a little surprising to me that only that one LLM actually "passed" their test, versus…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by akoboldfrying

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 11:37:01 GMT

You're right about interactivity, something that I overlooked -- but I think it's nevertheless the case that a large fraction of human interrogators could not distinguish a human from a suitably-system-prompted ChatGPT even over the course of an interactive discussion. ChatGPT 4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time in this RCT study, where human interrogators had 5-minute conversations with a human and an LLM: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — mentioned by te0006

Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:27:31 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test — HN submission

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 10:18:08 GMT

UCSD: Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test

91 points; 106 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.