>> Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result?

Isn't this what most major AI companies are doing anyway?

>Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result?

If you still need a rich person to pass the test, then the test is working as intended. Person A is rich or person A is backed by a rich sponsor is not a material difference for the test. You are hinging too much on minute details of the analogy.

In the real word, your riches can be sponsored by someone else, but for whatever intelligence task we envision, if the machine is taking it then the machine is taking it.

>Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino?

Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.

>> Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.

So, most people can't get $1 Trillion to build a machine that fools people into thinking it's intelligent. That's probably also not a trick that will ever be repeated.

When your arguments fall apart, it's fine to admit it or to just not respond.

> Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.