> In some circumstances it has been surpassed already. It’s not an unfamiliar experience today to wonder whether we’re interacting online with a human or an AI

> In some circumstances it has been surpassed already. It’s not an unfamiliar experience today to wonder whether we’re interacting online with a human or an AI system, and even alleged experts have been taken in by bots like “Eugene Goostman,” which, posing as a Ukrainian teenager, fooled a panel of Royal Society judges in 2014 into thinking it was human. No, the Turing test has not been surpassed. The "panel" was not fooled; one judge on the panel was fooled. And how, I don't know. The sample dialog on the Wikipedia page for that bot is the sort of pointless trivia questions that a bot can answer and a human can get wrong, and it won't tell you anything about who you're interrogating. If you instead try holding context across multiple inquiries, the charade will quickly reveal itself, (">" = human, "<" = bot's reply.) > Hello. < Nice to meet you! Please tell me how you found me and what you'd like to discuss :-) > Through Wikipedia. Tell me about somewhere you've visited. < May I ask you about the real reason of your interest? Maybe, let's talk about something else? What would you like to discuss? > Curious about your history. Why do you not want to discuss it? < How do you know? I thought nobody could guess that! Could you tell me what are you? I mean your profession. The previous reply is nonsense, and the constant evasion is typical of chat bots like Cleverbot. Clearly bot. I know I'm not blind, but I think we're kidding ourselves to equate this with the dialogue capabilities of a human. It took 3 queries to get to that. Even more recent attempts, like AI dungeon, fall apart after 2-3 queries that require context and understanding.