Well yes, thr Turing has to be defined exactly. That is not mvoing the goalposts because I never considered the Turing test to be a quick 10 minute chat. I am

Well yes, thr Turing has to be defined exactly. That is not mvoing the goalposts because I never considered the Turing test to be a quick 10 minute chat. I am sure that Turing in his original publication soecific the conditions manner under which a Turing test should be performed. That was over half a century ago though. What are we more interested in, when talking about the concept of a Turing test, the exact version that Turing described, basically v0, or a test which captures that concept that AGI can be tested via an exchange of language? I think the latter is the much more useful and fundamental concept: The hypothesis that AGI can be tested purely via language has not been disproven for Turing tests of sufficiently large compelxity/length. Hence I find it most useful to think of the Turing test of a family of tests that have in common that they are a purely language based conversation but that may be held on different time, complexity or adversiality scales. Why would I interpret the definition like this instead of sticking to the original paper? Because the article here makes the fallacy that the v0 Turing test not detecting AGI implies that the "AGI can be tested bia language" is in question. This is just not true.