I don't know about limits, you can decide for yourself what it would take for you to be convinced some agent is "intelligent." The fact that we've been trying f

I don't know about limits, you can decide for yourself what it would take for you to be convinced some agent is "intelligent." The fact that we've been trying for 70 years is completely immaterial. How long until we got the ability to fly? Seems like we had been trying at least a few thousand years, that says little about feasibility. The test is an adversarial game, and both sides can attempt new strategies of fooling or seeing through the opponent. I think your claim about being able to pass any set of limits is rather bold, and I would be curious about arguments for it. We're already in the territory where there are certain applications for these chatbots, and there is no fundamental argument why we this line of research could not progress further until it reaches its goals. I don't mean to say I believe we'll have AI soon, just that you can't fault the Turing test for not doing what it should. What do you mean when you say there is a problem with positively defining intelligence? Do you think we should define it negatively? There is a lot of criticism of the Turing test, but alternative proposals are exceedingly rare.