Why do people keep referencing the Turing test? Turing did not anticipate there’d be a gigantic dump of text contributed by humans online to feed off.
I mentioned it to have a more complete set of definitions for AGI from across the community - but do agree that it is by far the weakest and more-so a measurement of human variability and gullibility than AI intelligence.
A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Those people should be disqualified from the conversation for the same reason we disqualify biblical literalists from conversations about radio carbon dating.
Doesn't this assume there IS an objective, quantifiable definition of an "intelligent machine" that is agreed upon by most people? That instead sounds rather subjective to my ears.
Some people don't even have a subjective definition though. They'll continue to deny the machines are intelligent no matter where the line is drawn.
It's not worth debating those folks because to them it is a matter of faith and no amount of reason can convince the unreasonable.
I only get so many hours on earth, I'd rather not spend them debating what the definition of "is" is with someone who would rather litigate tautological nonsense than accept *any* level of evidence as sufficient.