I think we're unfortunately fixated on a very literal reading of the famous Turing test (i.e. cleverly emulating humans = intelligence). Consider language, for

I think we're unfortunately fixated on a very literal reading of the famous Turing test (i.e. cleverly emulating humans = intelligence). Consider language, for instance. Dolphin communication is intelligent, but does not emulate humans well; whereas the computer program ELIZA (1964) lacked intelligence, but was able to emulate humans well enough to entertain many people for quite some time. Our current state-of-the-art NLP is - after copious research, talent, and computation - able to emulate human language somewhat better than ELIZA. But is it intelligence? There's certainly a lot of complexity involved, and neural networks show some interesting building-block patterns, but the lack of these algorithms' ability to generalize into new spaces, grow our fundamental understanding of the world around us, or really do anything besides pretend to be a human makes one wonder whether our current "AI" is just a (very good) party trick - a better version of ELIZA.