Does this mean AI is getting good or humans (at least ones AI has been compared to) are pretty low bar to clear and just chinese-rooming the arguments would pas

Does this mean AI is getting good or humans (at least ones AI has been compared to) are pretty low bar to clear and just chinese-rooming the arguments would pass as a debate? Reading some internet forums, it's hard not to think a bot could produce many of the comments. Watching some political coverage only intensifies the feeling. How many of the debates, on average, can be classified as more than chinese-rooming? I wonder if anybody did a sort of reverse Turing test - just like regular one but no computers involved at all, unknown to the tester which is told one of them is an AI, and how many people would be declared failing it? > Another IBM researcher suggested that this technology could help judge fake news. That part is actually scary. Opaque algorithms from IBM would decide for us what are facts and what are fakes? And they'd know how? Because IBM marketing dept said they're so good? Thanks but no thanks.