> then it'll also not pass the Turing test Chatterbots, including the 60s-era ELIZA, which are mostly useless for this kind of task, have repeatedly been shown

> then it'll also not pass the Turing test Chatterbots, including the 60s-era ELIZA, which are mostly useless for this kind of task, have repeatedly been shown to be able to trick people into chosing the machine during the Turing "Test", so I'm not sure how you come by that conclusion. > at least if you require consciousness as a requirement for "thinking". I don't require consciousness, or an abstract and not-even-clearly-defined "thinking" capability from an advanced ML model. I require fitness for purpose, whatever that purpose is, and in most use cases I ever encountered, "trick the humen into believing I'm a human" isn't one of them. > Maybe we just disagree on what we mean when we say "think"? I don't think we really disagree, I think the problem is that "thinking", "consciousness", "intelligence" and a lot of other terms that often get thrown around when talking about AI, are really not well defined in technical terms.