> Moreover, for nearly 3/4 of a century the scientific community has pretty much coalesced on only using the output to define intelligence (aka the Turing Test)

> Moreover, for nearly 3/4 of a century the scientific community has pretty much coalesced on only using the output to define intelligence (aka the Turing Test). It's more like the scientific community has spent the last 50+ years criticizing the Turing Test. Passing as a human is a nice engineering goal, but there has been a lot of doubt of using input/output behavior as the only measure of intelligence. If you took a basic AI class before machine learning became popular, the chances are the class spent more time on the criticism than on the test itself.