TLDR: just because one person or even a group of them are gullible enough to be fooled by something doesn't mean that that thing is actually indistinguishable e

TLDR: just because one person or even a group of them are gullible enough to be fooled by something doesn't mean that that thing is actually indistinguishable enough from consciousness to count as conscious for all intents and purposes, which is the idea behind the Turing Test. Humans tend to anthropomorphize, be trusting and gullible, and the Turing test is a short, limited scenario, with no real larger context in play. To actually figure out if something was indistinguishable enough from a conscious being to count as conscious, you'd have to have a lot of very in depth interacts with it over a long period of time, to really get a sense for how it thinks and operates. And just because something superficially looks conscious doesn't mean it will actually be able to do all the things conscious beings can — i.e., that it will actually be conscious. Nor does it mean that the processes going on under the hood will be the same as what goes on for conscious beings. Nor should bringing up philosophy of mind make you think I'm an LLM, and if it does, that probably means that you can't tell the difference between bullshit and abstraction, which says more about your intelligence than mine.