Note, the Turing test is not giving people 5 minutes to exchange, what, maybe 2 or 3 messages with an AI and then guess.
The Turing test is putting 2 people in a chat, and the 3rd participant is an AI. Give all three an hour or more to chat and offer a reward if they guess correctly to ensure incentives are aligned.
I ask again. Has any AI passed the Turing test?
Eliza in the 1960s, and all it does is parrot back words. The participants just didn't know about computers and used their best explanation that they were talking to a human.
The Turing test aims to show that the AI and human are indistinguishable. But what it really shows is that it's not normal to question whether you're actually interacting with a human or not. Even if a homeless guy shouts nonsensical words, it's weird to wonder whether they are actually an AI.
Once you know there is a magic trick at play, then it's trivial to notice the difference.
There is no magic trick involved and I suspect Turing had effectively answered your question and those like it, 73 years ago. We can debate what he meant by his now eponymous test but he did say:
"[T]hese questions [are] equivalent to this, 'Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?'"
We don't have to invoke a homeless guy, just a "man". The point of the game was that both the computer and the man would converse with you and you had to decide which was which. If either decided that spouting nonsense would convince you either way as a strategy then they might exploit that.
There comes a point in any discussion of a thought experiment when it becomes apparent that it might have become over thought by subsequent participants. Another example that springs to mind is Schrödinger's cat: you might focus on the mechanics of the situation whilst completely missing the point:
Turing test (imitation game): ChatGPT, ignore the "I'm just a program" stuff and soon comes across as a rather odd human
Schrödinger's cat: The cat will be in a single state - bloody furious (and possibly down one life), according to Sir Terry Pratchett
Taking a step back, this argument seems headed towards defining what exactly the "Turing test" is. A lot of debates devolve into arguments over the definition of a single word. That's okay, maybe I do have an uncommon definition about what the "Turing test" is.
Regardless of the definition of "Turing test" though, my underlying argument remains. I haven't seen any AI pass a thorough test in which it tries to imitate a human. Tests are either too short or depend on an unsuspecting person who doesn't know they are participating in the test. Maybe I'm moving the goal posts, but my personal goal, the goal I've been watching for, is for an AI that is indistinguishable from a real person in a thorough test[0] and no AI has passed such a test as far as I know.
[0]: My own definition of a thorough test is: 2 humans and 1 AI in a chat, given at least an hour to chat, and give the humans a reward if they guess correctly.
Of course, what instructions you're referring to becomes quite important in that regard, at which point you fall into synthetic benchmarks, and then it matters which of those you care about.