You, and ideally everyone else commenting on this stuff on HN, should just have a very quick read of Turing's original paper before criticizing. It is very well

You, and ideally everyone else commenting on this stuff on HN, should just have a very quick read of Turing's original paper before criticizing. It is very well thought-out: Alan Turing, 1950: "The game may perhaps be criticised on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing. He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic. May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does? This objection is a very strong one, but at least we can say that if, nevertheless, a machine can be constructed to play the imitation game satisfactorily, we need not be troubled by this objection." The Turing test is a proposed test of sufficiency for thinking; not a test of necessity; its really framed pretty well in his original paper.