The point of the Turing Test is widely misunderstood, and not to pick on you, but your point is a perfect example. The Test is very explicitly NOT about what is

The point of the Turing Test is widely misunderstood, and not to pick on you, but your point is a perfect example. The Test is very explicitly NOT about what is on the other side of the curtain, but rather _how do we know_ what is on the other side. Turings point being of course that if you remove all trace “human” things from an interaction and reduce it only the barest minimum of things that we need to mathematics in our universe, (eg ZFC + choice) then not only can we not distinguish if something is an AI, we can’t distinguish if it’s human! Or even conscious. And furthermore, it is not clear we could tell while also retaining mathematical consistency. Which is a much deeper issue about us. What is on the other side of the curtain is actually irrelevant to the point he was making, and his argument is not dependent on it. It could be a baboon. Or a rock. Or a black hole. It doesn’t matter. What matters is _can we tell if it is not human_. It turns out this happens to be not all that different that asking whether an AI is human, but for reasons unrelated to the fact that it is an AI. I find if you explain to people that the turing test, an uncountability argument, and the chinese room problem, are all equivalent statements of the same thing, that it is much easier to grasp the point Turing was making. Turings point only depends on us, human beings. So long as we are around and still human, the Test will remain highly relevant.