How I Failed the Turing Test 326
chrisjrn writes "I stubled across this article today, detailing a man's experiences of being added to AIM Screen Name lists - one full of "celebrities" and the other full of "Sex Bots" (he was, of course, neither of these).
Raises a few questions as to how easy it is to get a hold of your screenname, and also of the effectiveness of the Turing Test for AI, in the online world. Or is it just that people aren't bothered trying to tell the humans apart anymore?" Also, it's funny. Don't try to read anything deep into it.
It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Funny)
humor (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe I was aiming a little high with that one...
Re:humor (Score:2, Funny)
Re:humor (Score:5, Informative)
Re:humor (Score:5, Funny)
And how does that make you feel?
Re:humor (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps you should tell him that you're *giggle* kind of horny, but you've gotta go, so he should check your pics on a site ending in 18+.com.
MOD PARENT FUNNY (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT FUNNY (Score:2)
Ok, this makes no sense... how come the parent has been modded funny, while the grandparent, who told the actual joke, is modded flamebait?
And it isn't even Monday! Sheesh... :)
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Insightful)
shymuffin32: why do you like music?
jmstriegel: hmm. i've never really considered that.
jmstriegel: hell, i'm not going to be able to contrive a good answer for that one. ask me something else.
he doesn't give a response that proves he even recognizes the question, instead, he gives a brain-dead answer that could be put into any number of questions.
just like, try harder next time dude
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:2)
OK...why do you like music?
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, long story short. You want someone to stop asking you frivolous questions? Give them answers.
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:3, Funny)
I just like stealing things.
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:3, Insightful)
He at least got the context right, and gave an original answer, that's a bare minimum human response. The human shouldn't have to "try" to seem human. (Of course, they also shouldn't be trying to seem less than human or the test is unfair in the other direciton)
Maybe those trying to "administer" Turing tests need to learn to have a bit more of an attention span...
Of cour
Typical AOL-IM user (Score:5, Funny)
Me, too!
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:5, Funny)
The conversation went something like this:
Keith M Gabryelski: fort lauderdale, fl
[... moments pass
Zagats: ?
Keith M Gabryelski: sushi
Zagats: what do you want?
Keith M Gabryelski: Well, missed opportunity me thinks. Have you never heard of Zagat's guide?
At this point it is obvious to me my relationship with zagats will not be going much further. I receive no reply and set my sights on trying to navigate the zagat website from my danger device.
A few days later, at lunch I notice "zagats" online again. I thought: hmmmm... let's play:
Keith M Gabryelski: recommend thai boston, ma
[... no response
About three minutes later:
Ginaleena03: why are you im'ing my friend... shes not the zagats guidebook, shes a law student
Keith M Gabryelski: Ok, then can u suggest a good thai place in boston?
Keith M Gabryelski: Somewhere around the theatre district
Keith M Gabryelski: That's ok if you have to think about... Get back to me later please
[... time passes
Ginaleena03: no
Ginaleena03: we're not earning commissions over here
Keith M Gabryelski: Ok. Well... I have a review for the zagat guide. Can I forward it to you and can you get it to them?
[... at this point ginaleena03 and zagats both log off; I suspect I have been blocked
If anyone knows of a restaurant guide on AIM could you please forward the screenname? I suspect both of these are real people.
Pax, Keith
Ps, Yes... this actually happened
PPs, Yes... I am an as*hole
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:3, Interesting)
But his experiences are amusing. I would have played with it a bit more. Make the idiot invest that much more time to ultimately find out you're not some commonly known celebrity but the Ruler of the Universe instead.
I recall when the ALICE IRC bot was first getting rolled out. Everyone was so amazed and then I popped the question:
Re:It's not that he failed the Turing test... (Score:3, Interesting)
I came home hours later and found the log. She started out all sweet, but slowly became more and more irritated with "my" responses. Finally culminating in questions like, "Don't you love me?" and "Why are you treating me like this?". Of c
Sex bots (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sex bots (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sex bots (Score:5, Funny)
But many of them... a number of Does.
I guess that would be funny then
Re:Sex bots (Score:3, Funny)
Another AI test (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another AI test (Score:5, Funny)
The most convincing AIs I've seen are the bots in FPS games. And they're already programmed to hunt down and kill humans...
Re:Another AI test (Score:3, Insightful)
game over man, game over
Re:Another AI test (Score:2)
And put my servants out a job!?
No thank you. I'll take a human to tie my shoes any day of the week over a heartless machine. The nerve!
Re:Another AI test (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another AI test (Score:3, Interesting)
Then stop calling it "AI" (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW, I spent two years at LCS, so I have a reasonable idea of what went on in the AI Lab when I was there. There was very little in the way of research into computer-emulating-human intelligence, which is probably a good thing (read: less of a waste of money) considering how little progress the Minsky crowd has made in the past thirty years.
Re:Then stop calling it "AI" (Score:3, Informative)
For a classic example, anybody using Emacs has AI to thank for that. Lisp originated as part of an IBM project arising out of one of Minsky's ideas and was finalized as part of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Project (again, Minsky was involved in that).
Like the space program, AI is f
Re:Another AI test (Score:3, Insightful)
Bots have interesting qualities (Score:5, Funny)
Ladies and Gentleman: a completely insensitive and unintelligen bot can be more interesting to chat with than a human! Well, at least they write correctly (N07 L@M3 @SS).
Re:Bots have interesting qualities (Score:2)
Re:Bots have interesting qualities (Score:3)
Parent Post == Startling Public Service Announcement
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that a group of people were told that he's a bot, and nothing (correctly and articulately written) could shake their belief in that. One of them even calls him "worse than eliza" when he tries to argue that he's human.
Some people found a list of bots online, and, you know, that makes it the absolute truth. Everyone on it _has_ to be a bot, because the list says so.
Another group found a list of celebrities, and again, took it as absolute truth. They didn't know _who_ this guy is, _what_ is he supposedly famous for, etc. But OMG, he must be a celebrity because the list says so, and that makes it sooo cooool to talk to him.
Basically it's _not_ the "some people are so stupid they could pass for bots" problem. (Which by itself is very true, but it's not really what TFA is about.) The problem, if you will, is simply "some people are gullible idiots." That's all.
It does leave me with me a bunch of other philosophical and etical questions though. If it's this possible to convince people that John Average is a bot (and in fact, it didn't even involve more "convincing" than writing it on some random list on the internet), what _else_ could you convince them? That John Average is a convicted fellon? A spammer? A paedophile?
And mind you, in this case he got a chance to even try to talk back and plead his case. I can easily think of cases where you don't get that chance. E.g., when a prospective employer googles for your name, you might not even know why you didn't get the job. What completely unrelated Marvin did they find on some bogus list on the Internet, and what image did they build for themseleves out of disparate bits taken out of context?
That said, the problem you mention is very true too. I know I've met people online before, especially in online games, who substantially lowered the bar for a Turing test. It was definitely more fun to talk/play with the bots instead, and you could get more intelligent conversation out of the bots too. Admittedly, online games are a completely different category than IM and chat rooms, but still... It's scary, you know.
Re:Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is... he is worse than Elize, at least in that snippet of conversation. The guy asks him about something specific, regarding music, and Eliza would have at least parsed the sentence or given some ready-made bit of music-related dialog. Instead, he gives a slightly longer version of a Magic 8 Ball's "Reply hazy - Ask again later".
Jeez, man, can't you even come up with a band you like or an anecdote or SOMETHING
How he got listed as a sex bot... (Score:5, Interesting)
And Perhaps one day... (Score:5, Funny)
By some day, I think I meant around 1999 or so.
Re:And Perhaps one day... (Score:2)
Re:And Perhaps one day... (Score:3, Insightful)
Never underestimate the power of a human doing a half-assed job.
Re:And Perhaps one day... (Score:2)
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
In Soviet Russia, automated stimuli and responses, trapsing through you!
*beep*
Re:And Perhaps one day... (Score:2)
Please (Score:3, Funny)
GATTACA (Score:5, Funny)
Turing Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Most AI today is extremely specialized. It's not hard to design something that appears to think, if it only has to check for 3 cases.
The problem with speech is that assumming all humans use perfect rules, which they don't, and assuming all computers know the perfect rules, which they don't as well, creates a logistical nightmare. Computers work well with numbers.
Did he say hi? Yes he did, so let's say hi back.
It is really hard to design a bot that would actually analyze what they are saying.
Did he say hi? Yes, he greeted me with a "hello" "Hello to you too."
Re:Turing Test (Score:2)
The problem is the sheer volume of rules needed.
It's just way too much work to do by hand. All that is really needed is an autom
Favourite bit (Score:5, Funny)
My favourite snippet has to be:
jmstriegel: no, really. I'm quite human.jmstriegel: test me if you want
shymuffin32: ok
shymuffin32: why do you like music?
jmstriegel: hmm. i've never really considered that.
jmstriegel: hell, i'm not going to be able to contrive a good answer for that one. ask me something else.
shymuffin32: jeesus, you're worse than eliza
It's not him that's stupid (as claimed elsewhere), it's these shymuffin32 morons.
Re:Favourite bit (Score:2)
Convincing someone you're human might just be harder than one might think - at least a bit more trouble than just answering a few questions.
Re:Favourite bit (Score:5, Funny)
No, I'd believe they're a politician.
Re:Favourite bit (Score:5, Funny)
Either way, there'd be no real intelligence.
Well, what would YOU answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if that someone is utterly retarded and asks completely retarded questions that don't even have a simple answer. That's the problem there. It's a question so stupid that even I couldn't think of something better to answer there. It's not "what music do you like?" or something else which can get a clear, to-the-point answer. It's "why do you like music?"
Well, try to answer that yourself. Why do you like music? What would you answer there?
Because I sure as heck can't think of any good answer there, generic or not. Screw trying to anwer that in 1 minute on IM. I'm sitting here for the last half an hour thinking about it and still have no bloody idea. Because it's background noise? Well, no, because other background noises (e.g., a lawnmower or some co-workers' chatter) annoy me. What then? I have no clue, and probably 4 out of 5 pyschologists or musicians would have no idea either.
So how would I say that in a way that sounds non-generic? "Hell if I know. I've never thought about it"? Nah, you've just ruled a variant of that as too generic. "Well, why do YOU like it, then?" Nope, sounds like the kind of rephrasing the question back at you that an Eliza program would do.
The only non-generic answer that comes to my mind there is along the lines of "WTF of a retarded question is that? Were you born that stupid, or worked hard to get there?"
By contrast, if shymuffin32 actually had more than a braincell, it would be easy to ask some questions that can get simple, to-the-point answers. In fact, screw questions and answers and try to just have an intelligent conversation.
Want more conclusive? Mix some images in it, which would still throw any AI off the track completely. E.g., point him at a picture of someone holding a siberian cat and see if he comments about the size. (It's one bloody huge breed of cats.) Point him at a drawing of one of the giant guns on rails Germany was planning to build in WW2. See what he thinks about the size of that one. (Tends to get answers between "bloody freaking hell" and "do you think Freud might have something to do with it?") Etc.
Re:Well, what would YOU answer? (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, using images would put it out of the scope of the original form of the Test.
Re:Well, what would YOU answer? (Score:3, Interesting)
For me, the most interesting part of this conversation is that it suggests that we're getting close enough that humans need to work at it in order to sound different from bots. We used to think that the Turing test was some
Re:Well, what would YOU answer? (Score:3, Informative)
"Well, try to answer that yourself. Why do you like music? What would you answer there?
Because I sure as heck can't think of any good answer there, generic or not. Screw trying to anwer that bla bla bla"
Re:Well, what would YOU answer? (Score:3, Funny)
I blanked out and sat for five minutes trying to think of why I liked programming, because the answer of "Umm... I like it?" didn't seem to actually answer anything.
Got the job anyway. Still not sure how.
Re:Favourite bit (Score:2)
I find that snippet hilarious, because jmstriegel is supposedly trying to act human, yet his answers are exactly like a bot.
I mean, how hard can it be to show that you understand the question?
Of course, shymuffin32's question is a ridiculously stupid one too... if you want to test a human you need to ask a specific question about current events or something. Bots are designed to answer vague questions like his.
Re:Favourite bit (Score:3, Insightful)
(Okay, you have less than 10 seconds to answer).
--
Evan
Skype Prank (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Skype Prank (Score:2)
Re:Skype Prank (Score:2)
still giggling
Re:Skype Prank (Score:5, Funny)
At the end, they'll shout at each other. At this point you can leave. Very funny.
Re:Skype Prank (Score:4, Funny)
Very funny that one, but I can beat it.
This [nearlygood.com] is what happens when you call a chinese takeaway, put it on hold, call another chinese takeaway, make an order, unhold the first takeaway and get the second to repeat the order back to the first.
As you can imagine, the second one thinks the first is trying to order. It gets funny when they're trying to work out who will be picking up the food :)
Re:Skype Prank (Score:3, Informative)
Only Allow Messages ... (Score:5, Informative)
Cute (Score:5, Interesting)
What people should remember is that the turing test requires that the inquistor is competent. If the inquisitor is not (i.e. random AIM idiots), then the test isn't vaild, cause these people can't tell intelligences apart anyway. Also, the inquisitor is supposed to convince themselves via sufficient interaction w/ the system being tested. AIM chats, particularly short one-off dialogues probably aren't a good staging ground for the turing test.
Also, a lot of naive people don't know the capabilities (and limitations) of Artificial Intelligence, so sadly, i'm not surprised at this guy's - or should i say robot's - results.
Re:Cute (Score:2)
Re:Cute (Score:2)
It's a functional test. Intelligent is as intelligent does. If the inquisitor can't identify an intelligence, then the test can't take place. So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.
Re:Cute (Score:3, Insightful)
If the computer must be indistinguishable from a human intelligence, then it's not about fooling some of the people, it's about fooling all of the people. Not just those of average intelligence, but anyone and everyone they stick in front of the keyboard.
If it has to pas
Re:Cute (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the problem we have here is the definition of "passing" the
really, it can't be that hard (Score:5, Funny)
user1: ~~OMG~~
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user2: WUT!?
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
user3: LoL
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user1: You LOL
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user3: STFU LOL!
user2: OMG hAhA!
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user1: JK
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
Re:really, it can't be that hard (Score:3, Funny)
Shaving problems? (Score:5, Funny)
You should try the Mach 3. It's tri-blade system gives you an extra smooth shave so you too can avoid stublingacross articles.
Funny reading (Score:4, Informative)
Makes me think of Azimov short stories.
I like the conclusion.
Re:Funny reading (Score:2)
wel.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the ultimate weapon in AI detection , it's called severe dyslexia .
If I don't spell check and proof read then no bot could hold a conversation with me .
Instant messaging is not a great place to rely on spell checking and proof reading , but it does rely on our minds ability to see past simpel speling/grammer erors (intentional)
Re:wel.. (Score:2)
Re:wel.. (Score:2)
TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Posted Sep 4 2005 - 1:26pm by Jason Striegel
Filed under ai | celebrities | computer science | psychology | technology
Some time around March, I started receiving a number of random instant messages from people I've never met before. Apparantly, my AIM alias had been added to at least two online lists and people all over the world were busy importing me as a buddy.
I say "at least two" because the people who contacted me fell into one of two camps: people who thought they were contacting a celebrity and people who thought they were contacting a robot. As I talked to more and more of these folks, I began to discover something really disturbing about myself:
I consistently fail to be perceived as human.
When this first started happening, a typical conversation with a celebrity admirer would go something like this (participant's IM handle is fabricated):
angelcutie42: hi!
jmstriegel: hey. what's up? do i know you?
angelcutie42: no
angelcutie42: someone gave me a bunch of screen names. i heard you are a celebrity.
jmstriegel: that's weird. i'm afraid i'm not a celeb at all.
angelcutie42: oh.
angelcutie42: bye
This was entertaining at first, but it quickly became a bit depressing as the angelcutie42s of the wired world would, one after the other, decide I wasn't worth talking to if I wasn't a celebrity. Want to know what it's like being dumped by a random groupie 5 times a day? Not good at all, thank you very much.
So that's when I started hamming it up a bit. I'm not really proud of it, but my fans wanted a celebrity.. so I gave them one:
sexybumkin123: hey.. so you're famous right?
jmstriegel: Who me? I'm a movie star.
jmstriegel: Shit, I gotta go.
jmstriegel: My limo just arrived and Paris wants her damned sidekick back.
sexybumkin123: Oh my god. Come back!
sexybumkin123: I love you!!!!
My groupies loved it. The more celebrity balogna I manufactured, the more they ate it, and the more they loved me.
Then, something strange started happening. As my career as an artificial celebrity started to take off, I began to receive some strange IMs from a whole new class of random people. These new admirers were convinced I was a robot... and it suddenly became clear to me that something was very wrong.
Nobody would believe I was human. In one troubling conversation after another, I felt my intellectual teeter-totter quickly tip from from actual to artificial.
fratburger86: hey. so you're a sex bot?
jmstriegel: umm, no. who the hell are you?
fratburger86: yeah you are! i found your im online
jmstriegel: that's fine and all, but i'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.
fratburger86: just a normal chat bot then?
jmstriegel: nope. i'm human
fratburger86: ok. sure.
fratburger86: asl?
jmstriegel: no thanks.
fratburger86: what?
jmstriegel: i'm not really interested in any conversation that starts with "asl"
fratburger86: oh come on. say something sexy.
jmstriegel: seriously, i think you want to talk to someone else.
fratburger86: i knew it!!!
fratburger86: you are totally a robot!
This is where things took a turn for the worse.
weizenbaum (Score:4, Funny)
It struck me how materialistically obsessed that enquiry seemed - and I regretted asking.
I guess he had never forseen that his critic of the "strong AI" movement would one day be used for IM based pron-ads.
In General, when speaking of /. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't try to read anything deep into it.
holds true.
TFA :) (Score:2, Informative)
Some time around March, I started receiving a number of random instant messages from people I've never met before. Apparantly, my AIM alias had been added to at least two online lists and people all over the world were busy importing me as a buddy.
I say "at least two" because the people who contacted me fell into one of two camps: people who thought they were contacting a celebrity and people who thought they were contacting a robot. As I talked to more and more of these folks, I began to discover someth
The role of the Interviewer (Score:4, Interesting)
The value of the Turing test depends a lot on the nature of the questions asked. Anybody can ask difficult questions that fellow humans fail to copy with, but not everybody knows what are difficult questions for computers (which may well be simple for humans). Thus, an Artificial Intelligence researcher should be a more suitable interviewer than a non-expert.
Good Example:
requesting the description of an emotion (recalling an event that typically invokes strong emotions)
Bad Example:8 )
Hard math (34589759847359874389574398+348792847982374983749
This is a troll.... (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who don't know.. (Score:5, Informative)
My best work with Eliza . . . (Score:4, Funny)
> Let's talk about something else.
* Hey, *you* brought it up.
> What does that suggest to you?
* You're an idiot?
> Does it please you to believe I am an idiot?
* Yes. Boundlessly.
> Are you Sure?
* Oh, wait. Maybe not so much.
> You aren't sure?
* No, I was right the first time. I've never believed anything so strongly.
> Are you sure?
* Dammit, you're right. I swim in uncertainty.
> Perhaps you would like to be right. you swim in uncertainty?
* Well, I have water wings . . .
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* More of a float, really . . .
> Can you elaborate on that?
* Yeah, its rubber, about four feet long . . .
> I see.
* You do?
> You're not really talking about me, are you?
* No, we're talking about my damn raft! Pay attention!
> You are being a bit negative.
* A bit? You could crash an oil stock with me!
> Oh... could crash an oil stock with you?
* Shit, dude, do you even have a mutual fund?
Or, if you prefer hot girl-on-girl action . . . (Score:3, Funny)
* Hello, I am Eliza.
> Did you come to me because you are Eliza?
* Does it please you to believe I am Eliza?
> Do you believe it is normal to be Eliza?
* Oh... believe it is normal to be Eliza?
> I'm not sure I understand you fully.
* Did you come to me because you are not sure you understand me fully?
> What makes you think I am not sure me understand you fully?
* How long have you been not sure you understand me fully?
> We were discussing you, not me.
* We were discussing you
Class paper (Score:5, Informative)
There *are* people who talk to bots (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I looked at logs of conversations. It turned out that there were people who actually talked with her for quite a while, struggling with English. The scheme was more or less the same. First some usual phrases to start a conversation, then trying to get some information about her and finally realizing that she is unwilling to tell anything about herself
So, in a way, she has passed a Turing test, but the knowledge of English was poor on both sides.
This is a "Reverse Turing Test" (Score:4, Informative)
Which reminds me of (Score:3, Funny)
Tried to chat with Eliza (Score:3, Funny)
> Tell me more...
* I beg your pardon?
> What about your own pardon?
* I don't know what you're talking about
> Do you sometimes wish you were talking about?
* Well, I guess so
> I'm not sure I understand you fully.
* It's me who doesn't understand you fully!
> Oh... fully?
My favorites were
-What about your own pardon?
-Do you sometimes wish you were talking about?
Obviously, it's a bot.
However, I find the bot included in EMACS to be quite intelligent. And it's because the bot listens to you and just says stuff like "go on".
That's what bots fail to do: telling you anything or answering your questions. Ask a bot who's Steve Ballmer and how is he related to the monkeyboy (ask the bot to Google if he refuses) and the bot will reveal its electronic nature.
Cybernetic Poet and the Turing test (Score:5, Interesting)
1) people's (AIMers) lower standards for conversation;
2) and also their open mindedness towards what a computer is capable of producing.
I guess the first point is negative and the second positive. The combination leaves a situation where a computer doesn't have to generate anything sophisticated to be tagged as human.
I once administered an informal Turing test using Ray Kurzweil's Cybernetic Poet [kurzweiltech.com]. I presented to 6 friends several dozen poems, some of which were computer generated (the poems, not the friends...).
People who were computer savvy tended to overestimate what a computer was capable of doing and did rather poorly. Similarly, people who were artistic but not very techie tended to have a very open mind regarding what constituted human poetry (bad grammar, non sequiturs, etc. were ok in an e.e. cummings sort of way) and also did poorly.
The people who did consistently well were those who were neither computer types nor artists, but rather "pure" academics (language specialists, classicists, etc.). They simply used grammar and puncutation as their guide.
All I can say is: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Absolutely dead link (Score:2)
Re:Absolutely dead link (Score:2)
Sorry, sorry, sorry, my fault, wrong link.
Maybe the coral [nyud.net] [com.nyud.nu] could help. This is the correct one. But it doesn't work, either. Maybe the Mirrordot one [mirrordot.com]'s...
--
Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
Re:Is that a record.... (Score:2)
Think of the code bloat!
Think of the massive performance!
Think of the children!!!
Seriously though; any cache system, including the fine "Coral" would probably fail under Slashdot load, besides making enemies if you did that on every single article.
Or: How blogcadre failed the /. test (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway: Philip K Dick in the story Do robots dream of electric sheep, discussess the ways to distinguish androids from humans with some nice tests. They also upgrade the tests all the time. Maybe it is time to upgrade the Turing test too.
Re:Is that a record.... (Score:2)