Comment by chomp

That substack article poorly understand's Turing's paper anyway. Cars aren't even mentioned. Chess is briefly mentioned at the end. I wouldn't base any opinions off of it.

Turing's test was not "this computer fooled me over text, therefore it's an AI". It's a philosophical, "we want to consider a machine that thinks, well we can't really define what thinking is, so instead it's more important to observe if a machine is indistinguishable from a thinker." He then goes on to consider counterpoints to the question, "Can a machine think?" Which is funny because some of these counterpoints are similar to the ones in the author's article.

Author offers no definition of "think" or "invent" or other words. It's paragraph after paragraph of claiming cognitive superiority. Turing's test isn't broken, it's just a baseline for discussion. And comparing it to SHA-1 is foolish. Author would have done better with a writeup of the Chinese room argument.