You are making the mistake of confusing a mind with a human mind… a vastly different type of mind should not be expected to be good at everything we are good at

You are making the mistake of confusing a mind with a human mind… a vastly different type of mind should not be expected to be good at everything we are good at, even if generally far more intelligent. I think people generally make the same mistake with discounting the more intelligent animals by focusing on their inability to act human, and ignoring or not noticing that they can do things we are incapable of- like a dog navigating spaces in total darkness from scent alone. A human mind, for example is not sufficiently generally intelligent to convincing mimic even a fish mind- we cannot generally emulate minds structured differently from ours- e.g. humans cannot actually do the meta task your concept of the Turing test expects AI to do. Even an actual human mind with vastly different experiences- simulated perfectly in a computer or even just a regular person from a very different culture will fail your concept of the turing test, because our mind is shaped by our experiences. Also, I think your conception of LLM limitations is mistaken. We don’t fully understand them in theory- but I think the way to think of LLMs is that they are a probablistic world model able to simulate almost any scenario if setup properly. They are not themselves a mind, but if sufficiently good, they will simulate minds- and those simulated minds are actually minds but not human minds. Noam Chomsky published an article arguing how LLMs were incapable even in theory of doing things GPT4, which was released shortly after his article can do- showing that either his model of what they are, or of what is required for those tasks is mistaken. Ironically his way of thinking involves failing to understand that intelligent minds vastly different than human minds are even possible- while expecting AI to be able to not just understand but correctly navigate that situation.