SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2507.23091

Moravec's Paradox: Towards an Auditory Turing Test

Abstract

This research work demonstrates that current AI systems fail catastrophically on auditory tasks that humans perform effortlessly. Drawing inspiration from Moravec's paradox (i.e., tasks simple for humans often prove difficult for machines, and vice versa), we introduce an auditory Turing test comprising 917 challenges across seven categories: overlapping speech, speech in noise, temporal distortion, spatial audio, coffee-shop noise, phone distortion, and perceptual illusions. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art audio models including GPT-4's audio capabilities and OpenAI's Whisper reveals a striking failure rate exceeding 93%, with even the best-performing model achieving only 6.9% accuracy on tasks that humans solved at 7.5 times higher success (52%). These results expose focusing failures in how AI systems process complex auditory scenes, particularly in selective attention, noise robustness, and contextual adaptation. Our benchmark not only quantifies the human-machine auditory gap but also provides insights into why these failures occur, suggesting that current architectures lack fundamental mechanisms for human-like auditory scene analysis. The traditional design of audio CAPTCHAs highlights common filters that humans evolved but machines fail to select in multimodal language models. This work establishes a diagnostic framework for measuring progress toward human-level machine listening and highlights the need for novel approaches integrating selective attention, physics-based audio understanding, and context-aware perception into multimodal AI systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

David Noever, Forrest McKee. 2025-07-30. Moravec's Paradox: Towards an Auditory Turing Test. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23091

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI