Can ChatGPT pass the Turing Test yet?
Artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT are getting a whole lot smarter, a whole lot more natural, and a whole lot more…human-like. It makes sense — humans are the ones creating the large language models that underpin AI chatbots' systems, after all. But as these tools get better at "reasoning" and mimicking human speech, are they smart enough yet to pass the Turing Test?
For decades, the Turing Test has been held up as a key benchmark in machine intelligence. Now, researchers are actually putting LLMs like ChatGPT to the test. If ChatGPT can pass, the accomplishment would be a major milestone in AI development.
So, can ChatGPT pass the Turing Test? According to some researchers, yes. However, the results aren't entirely definitive. The Turing Test isn't a simple pass/fail, which means the results aren't really black and white. Besides, even if ChatGPT could pass the Turing Test, that may not really tell us how 'human' an LLM really is.
Let's break it down.
The concept of the Turing Test is actually pretty simple.
The test was originally proposed by British mathematician Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science and a hero to nerds around the world. In 1949 or 1950, he proposed the Imitation Game — a test for machine intelligence that has since been named for him. The Turing Test involves a human judge having a conversation with both a human and a machine without knowing which one is which (or who is who, if you believe in AGI). If the judge can't tell which one is the machine and which one is the human, the machine passes the Turing Test. In a research context, the test is performed many times with multiple judges.
Of course, the test can't necessarily determine if a large language model is actually as smart as a human (or smarter) — just if it's able to pass for a human.
Large language models, of course, do not have a brain, consciousness, or world model. They're not aware of their own existence. They also lack true opinions or beliefs.
Instead, large language models are trained on massive datasets of information — books, internet articles, documents, transcripts. When text is inputted by a user, the AI model uses its "reasoning" to determine the most likely meaning and intent of the input. Then, the model generates a response.
At the most basic level, LLMs are word prediction engines. Using their vast training data, they calculate probabilities for the first 'token' (usually a single word) of the response using their vocabulary. They repeat this process until a complete response is generated. That's an oversimplification, of course, but let's keep it simple: LLMs generate responses to input based on probability and statistics. So, the response of an LLM is based on mathematics, not an actual understanding of the world.
So, no, LLMs don't actually think in any sense of the word.
Joseph Maldonado / Mashable Composite by Rene Ramos Credit: Mashable
There have been quite a few studies to determine if ChatGPT has passed the Turing test, and many of them have had positive findings. That's why some computer scientists argue that, yes, large language models like GPT-4 and GPT-4.5 can now pass the famous Turing Test.
Most tests focus on OpenAI's GPT-4 model, the one that's used by most ChatGPT users. Using that model, a study from UC San Diego found that in many cases, human judges were unable to distinguish GPT-4 from a human. In the study, GPT-4 was judged to be a human 54% of the time. However, this still lagged behind actual humans, who were judged to be human 67% of the time.
Then, GPT-4.5 was released, and the UC San Diego researchers performed the study again. This time, the large language model was identified as human 73% of the time, outperforming actual humans. The test also found that Meta's LLaMa-3.1-405B was able to pass the test.
Other studies outside of UC San Diego have also given GPT passing grades, too. A 2024 University of Reading study of GPT-4 had the model create answers for take-home assessments for undergraduate courses. The test graders weren't told about the experiment, and they only flagged one of 33 entries. ChatGPT received above-average grades with the other 32 entries.
So, are these studies definitive? Not quite. Some critics (and there are a lot of them) say these research studies aren't as impressive as they seem. That's why we aren't ready to definitively say that ChatGPT passes the Turing Test.
We can say that while previous-gen LLMs like GPT-4 sometimes passed the Turing test, passing grades are becoming more common as LLMs get more advanced. And as cutting-edge models like GPT-4.5 come out, we're fast headed toward models that can easily pass the Turing Test every time.
OpenAI itself certainly envisions a world in which it's impossible to tell human from AI. That's why OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has invested in a human verification project with an eyeball-scanning machine called The Orb.
We decided to ask ChatGPT if it could pass the Turing Test, and it told us yes, with the same caveats we've already discussed. When we posed the question, "Can ChatGPT pass the Turing Test?" to the AI chatbot (using the 4o model), it told us, "ChatGPT can pass the Turing Test in some scenarios, but not reliably or universally." The chatbot concluded, "It might pass the Turing Test with an average user under casual conditions, but a determined and thoughtful interrogator could almost always unmask it."
AI-generated image. Credit: OpenAI
Some computer scientists now believe the Turing test is outdated, and that it's not all that helpful in judging large language models. Gary Marcus, an American psychologist, cognitive scientist, author, and popular AI prognosticator, summed it up best in a recent blog post, where he wrote, 'as I (and many others) have said for years, the Turing Test is a test of human gullibility, not a test of intelligence."
It's also worth keeping in mind that the Turing Test is more about the perception of intelligence rather than actual intelligence. That's an important distinction. A model like ChatGPT 4o might be able to pass simply by mimicking human speech. Not only that, but whether or not a large language model passes the test will vary depending on the topic and the tester. ChatGPT could easily ape small talk, but it could struggle with conversations that require true emotional intelligence. Not only that, but modern AI systems are used for much more than chatting, especially as we head toward a world of agentic AI.
None of that is to say that the Turing Test is irrelevant. It's a neat historical benchmark, and it's certainly interesting that large language models are able to pass it. But the Turing Test is hardly the gold-standard benchmark of machine intelligence. What would a better benchmark look like? That's a whole other can of worms that we'll have to save for another story.
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable's parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Business Solutions Marketing Group Unveils AI Video Marketing Program: Propelling Small Businesses to Google Page ONE
'For years, we've seen the incredible impact video has on connecting with audiences and building trust,'— Linda Donnelly MECHANICSBURG, PA, UNITED STATES, June 8, 2025 / / -- Business Solutions Marketing Group (BSMG), a leading marketing firm with over a decade of experience empowering small businesses, today announced the launch of its groundbreaking AI Video Marketing Program. This innovative program is designed to revolutionize how small businesses get found online, leveraging the unparalleled power of video combined with cutting-edge artificial intelligence to achieve consistent Page ONE, and Position ONE rankings on Google. In today's competitive digital landscape, capturing and retaining customer attention is more challenging than ever. While traditional text-based content often gets lost in the shuffle, research consistently shows that people remember an astounding 95% of a video message, compared to just 10% of text (Source: Dr. John Medina, 'Brain Rules'). This stark difference highlights a critical opportunity for businesses to communicate more effectively and memorably. 'For years, we've seen the incredible impact video has on connecting with audiences and building trust,' said Linda Donnelly, owner of Business Solutions Marketing Group. 'Now, by integrating advanced AI into our video marketing strategies, we're not just creating engaging content; we're optimizing it for Google's algorithms in a way that delivers truly game-changing results for our clients. We're consistently seeing their videos dominate search results.' The new AI Video Marketing Program goes beyond simple video creation. BSMG utilizes sophisticated AI tools to analyze search trends, identify high-impact keywords, and craft video content that Google recognizes as highly relevant and authoritative. This precise optimization process allows BSMG to strategically position clients' videos, leading to a remarkable success rate in securing top search positions. 'The magic isn't just in making a great video; it's in making sure Google understands and values that video enough to put it front and center,' Donnelly explained. 'Our program ensures that almost every video we post for our clients achieves a Page ONE, Position ONE ranking on Google day in and day out. This means unprecedented visibility, more qualified leads, and a significant boost to their online presence.' This revolutionary approach helps small businesses cut through the noise, making their brand unforgettable and easily discoverable by potential customers actively searching for their products and services. By leveraging the power of visual communication and smart AI, BSMG is setting a new standard for local SEO and digital marketing success. Small businesses, including law firms (for whom a dedicated version of the program is available), can discover how to transform their online visibility and harness the power of AI-driven video by visiting the program page. About Business Solutions Marketing Group: Business Solutions Marketing Group is a dedicated marketing firm based in Camp Hill, PA, serving small businesses nationwide for over a decade. Led by Linda Donnelly, BSMG specializes in a comprehensive range of marketing services, including Video Marketing, Reputation Management, Review Removal, and Google Business Listing Optimization. The firm is committed to providing innovative, results-driven strategies that help businesses grow and thrive in the digital age. Linda Donnelly Business Solutions Marketing Group +1 570-449-4023 email us here Visit us on social media: LinkedIn Bluesky Instagram Facebook YouTube TikTok X Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 Hot Tech Stocks With More Potential Than Any Cryptocurrency
CoreWeave's AI cloud business is booming. D-Wave's practical applications for quantum computing are impressing investors. QuantumScape could reshape the EV market with its solid-state batteries. 10 stocks we like better than CoreWeave › Cryptocurrencies might be worthwhile plays for investors who have a high tolerance for risk. However, they're also notoriously volatile and difficult to value since they often trade on market hype or murky future expectations regrading their scarcity or utility. So instead of chasing the market's hottest cryptocurrencies right now, it might be smarter to invest in three speculative tech stocks: CoreWeave (NASDAQ: CRWV), D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS), and QuantumScape (NYSE: QS). These stocks are also undeniably risky, but they're built on firmer businesses with clearer roadmaps for the future. CoreWeave, which was once an Ethereum mining operation, abandoned the crypto market in 2018 and leveraged its big inventory of graphics processing units (GPUs) to build an artificial intelligence (AI)-oriented cloud-infrastructure business. After spending about $100 million on Nvidia's H100 data center GPUs in 2022, it carved out a niche with a dedicated AI platform which was about 35 times faster and 80% cheaper than bigger cloud-infrastructure platforms. It used its own GPUs as collateral to secure more financing, and it attracted some investments from big investors like Nvidia, Cisco, and PureStorage. Its total number of data centers rose from just three in 2022 to 33 at the end of its latest quarter. Its revenue soared from $16 million in 2022 to $1.92 billion in 2024, and it expects that figure to more than double to about $5 billion in 2025. It isn't cheap at 15 times that sales estimate, and its stock has already more than quadrupled since its initial public offering (IPO) just two months ago. But it could have plenty of room to grow as the AI market expands. CoreWeave's lack of profits, high debt, and plans to accelerate its spending on Nvidia's latest Blackwell GPUs could compress its near-term valuations and cool off its stock, but it could head a lot higher over the next few years if it successfully scales up its business and narrows its losses. D-Wave Computing develops quantum annealing tools which can help companies optimize their schedules, workflows, and supply chains. Through quantum computing, which stores zeros and ones simultaneously in qubits, it operates more efficiently than traditional computers which store that data in separate binary bits. D-Wave's core Leap platform, which can be integrated into bigger public cloud platforms, is essentially a quantum-powered efficiency expert. It runs an organization's processes through its systems in various ways, and it identifies the one which consumes the least power as the most efficient. As a quantum-powered platform, D-Wave can map out all of those potential outcomes at a much faster rate than traditional computers. More than 100 companies -- including Deloitte, Mastercard, Lockheed Martin, and Accenture -- already use its services. That makes it a more practical play on the nascent quantum-computing market than its other niche research-oriented peers. From 2024 to 2027, analysts expect D-Wave's revenue to surge from $9 million to $74 million. It's not expected to turn profitable anytime soon, and it might seem absurdly overvalued at 70 times its projected sales for 2027. But it could grow a lot bigger as the quantum-computing market expands over the next few decades. QuantumScape is another speculative stock which could skyrocket over the long run. It develops solid-state lithium metal batteries which have better thermal resistance, faster charging times, and last longer than traditional lithium ion batteries. That makes them well suited for electric vehicles (EV), but it hasn't commercialized any of its batteries yet. QuantumScape is backed by Volkswagen, and its first QSE-5 batteries will have a fast charging time of less than 15 minutes with an EV range of up to 500 miles. Most EVs currently have a range of roughly 300 miles with an average charging time of 30 minutes. It's only shipped a few low-volume samples so far, and it doesn't expect to mass produce any batteries or generate any revenue until 2026. But this year, the company is transitioning from its older Raptor separator process to its newer Cobra process. That long-awaited upgrade should boost its stability and yields to pave the way toward the mass production of its batteries. QuantumScape is worth $2.4 billion right now, but it's tough to value because it's unprofitable, isn't generating any revenue yet, and still faces competition from other battery makers and automakers. But if it successfully scales up its business, it might just attract a stampede of bulls and outperform any of the market's top cryptocurrencies. Before you buy stock in CoreWeave, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CoreWeave wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Leo Sun has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Accenture Plc, Cisco Systems, Ethereum, Mastercard, Nvidia, and Pure Storage. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin and Volkswagen Ag. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Hot Tech Stocks With More Potential Than Any Cryptocurrency was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio


Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
5 lessons on finding truth in an uncertain world
Adam Kucharski is a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and an award-winning science writer. His book, The Rules of Contagion, was a Book of the Year in The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times. A mathematician by training, his work on global outbreaks has included Ebola, Zika, and COVID. He has advised multiple governments and health agencies. His writing has appeared in Wired, Observer, and Financial Times, among other outlets, and he has contributed to several documentaries, including BBC's Horizon. What's the big idea? In all arenas of life, there is an endless hunt to find certainty and establish proof. We don't always have the luxury of 'being sure,' and many situations demand decisions be made even when there is insufficient evidence to choose confidently. Every field—from mathematics and tech to law and medicine—has its own methods for proving truth, and what to do when it is out of reach. Professionally and personally, it is important to understand what constitutes proof and how to proceed when facts falter. Below, Adam shares five key insights from his new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. Listen to the audio version—read by Adam himself—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. It is dangerous to assume something is self-evident. In the first draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote that 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal.' But shortly before it was finalized, Benjamin Franklin crossed out the words 'sacred and undeniable,' because they implied divine authority. Instead, he replaced them with the famous line, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The term 'self-evident' was borrowed from mathematics—specifically from Greek geometry. The idea was that there could be a universal truth about equality on which a society could be built. This idea of self-evident, universal truths had shaped mathematics for millennia. But the assumption ended up causing a lot of problems, both in politics and mathematics. In the 19th century, mathematicians started to notice that certain theorems that had been declared 'intuitively obvious' didn't hold up when we considered things that were infinitely large or infinitely small. It seemed 'self-evident' didn't always mean well-evidenced. Meanwhile, in the U.S., supporters of slavery were denying what Abraham Lincoln called the national axioms of equality. In the 1850s, Lincoln (himself a keen amateur mathematician) increasingly came to think of equality as a proposition rather than a self-evident truth. It was something that would need to be proven together as a country. Similarly, mathematicians during this period would move away from assumptions that things were obvious and instead work to find sturdier ground. 2. In practice, proof means balancing too much belief and too much skepticism. If we want to get closer to the truth, there are two errors we must avoid: we don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true. It's a challenge that comes up throughout life. But where should we set the bar for evidence? If we're overly skeptical and set it too high, we'll ignore valid claims. But if we set the bar too low, we'll end up accepting many things that aren't true. In the 1760s, the English legal scholar William Blackstone argued that we should work particularly hard to avoid wrongful convictions. As he put it: 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' Benjamin Franklin would later be even more cautious. He suggested that 'it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.' 'We don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true.' But not all societies have agreed with this balance. Some communist regimes in the 20th century declared it better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person walk free. Science and medicine have also developed their own traditions around setting the bar for evidence. Clinical trials are typically designed in a way that penalizes a false positive four times more than a false negative. In other words, we don't want to say a treatment doesn't work when it does, but we really don't want to conclude it works when it doesn't. This ability to converge on a shared reality, even if occasionally flawed, is fundamental for science and medicine. It's also an essential component of democracy and justice. Rather than embracing or shunning everything we see, we must find ways to balance the risk that comes with trusting something to be true. 3. Life is full of 'weak evidence' problems. Science is dedicated to generating results that we can have high confidence in. But often in life, we must make choices without the luxury of extremely strong evidence. We can't, as some early statisticians did, simply remain on the fence if we're not confident either way. Whether we're sitting on a jury or in a boardroom, we face situations where a decision must be made regardless. This is known as the 'weak evidence' problem. For example, it might be very unlikely that a death is just a coincidence. But it also might be very unlikely that a certain person is a murderer. Legal cases are often decided on the basis that weak evidence in favor of the prosecution is more convincing than weak evidence for the defendant. Unfortunately, it can be easy to misinterpret weak evidence. A prominent example is the prosecutor's fallacy. This is a situation where people assume that if it's very unlikely a particular set of events occurred purely by coincidence, that must mean the defendant is very unlikely to be innocent. But to work out the probability of innocence, we can't just focus on the chances of a coincidence. What really matters is whether a guilty explanation is more likely than an innocent one. To navigate law—and life—we must often choose between unlikely explanations, rather than waiting for certainty. 4. Predictions are easier than taking action. If we spot a pattern in data, it can help us make predictions. If ice cream sales increase next month, it's reasonable to predict that heatstroke cases will too. These kinds of patterns can be useful if we want to make predictions, but they're less useful if we want to intervene in some way. The correlation in the data doesn't mean that ice cream causes heatstroke, and crucially, it doesn't tell us how to prevent further illness. 'Often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about.' In science, many problems are framed as prediction tasks because, fundamentally, it's easier than untangling cause and effect. In the field of social psychology, researchers use data to try to predict relationship outcomes. In the world of justice, courts use algorithms to predict whether someone will reoffend. But often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about. Whether we're talking about relationships or crimes, we don't just want to know what is likely to happen—we want to know why it happened and what we can do about it. In short, we need to get at the causes of what we're seeing, rather than settling for predictions. 5. Technology is changing our concept of proof. In 1976, two mathematicians announced the first-ever computer-aided proof. Their discovery meant that, for the first time in history, the mathematical community had to accept a major theorem that they could not verify by hand. However, not everyone initially believed the proof. Maybe the computer had made an error somewhere? Suddenly, mathematicians no longer had total intellectual control; they had to trust a machine. But then something curious happened. While older researchers had been skeptical, younger mathematicians took the opposite view. Why would they trust hundreds of pages of handwritten and hand-checked calculations? Surely a computer would be more accurate, right? Technology is challenging how we view science and proof. In 2024, we saw the AI algorithm AlphaFold make a Nobel Prize-winning discovery in biology. AlphaFold can predict protein structures and their interactions in a way that humans would never have been able to. But these predictions don't necessarily come with traditional biological understanding. Among many scientists, I've noticed a sense of loss when it comes to AI. For people trained in theory and explanation, crunching possibilities with a machine doesn't feel like familiar science. It may even feel like cheating or a placeholder for a better, neater solution that we've yet to find. And yet, there is also an acceptance that this is a valuable new route to knowledge, and the fresh ideas and discoveries it can bring.