I agree that those are also highly significant differences, though I'd consider them a reasonable "easy mode" while we wait for a machine capable of passing Turing's original test.
I focused on the statistical issue because that one seems indefensible to me. The paper's result has no clear interpretation, depending completely on what assumption the interrogator makes about the unspecified prior probability that their witness is human. It's not clear to me whether the paper's authors even understand what they've broken.
Just for fun, I tried a few LLMs and couldn't get them to recognize the statistical issue either. I guess they'll probably learn before social science professors do, though.
I focused on the statistical issue because that one seems indefensible to me. The paper's result has no clear interpretation, depending completely on what assumption the interrogator makes about the unspecified prior probability that their witness is human. It's not clear to me whether the paper's authors even understand what they've broken.
Just for fun, I tried a few LLMs and couldn't get them to recognize the statistical issue either. I guess they'll probably learn before social science professors do, though.