Ah ah ah, the answer "your comment punches below the belt and isn't acceptable in a community like this.".
However I would agree that it is an oblique version - that is, can a machine fool humans into thinking that they are human.
In which case I think it's probably safe to assume that GPT-3 has passed.
> The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B
> What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?
Somewhat politically incorrect, assuming men and women should ever be distinguished, but much more revealing about how exactly people see themselves.
Exactly.
(If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)
> This article is vapid. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation
Now, I would still have downvoted such a comment. If I'm reading a thread, I clearly like at least the article's topic, and I want to read more on that topic, not dismissive comments telling me that it's stupid. But, at least the modified version focuses on the content, rather than the author.
I think we're likely to get to a place where we either consolidate to trusted sources of information, or accept machine generated content as valuable on its own, even if for novelty and just move on with our miserable lives.