Comment by zahlman

> This is comical because we used to have something called the turing test

It didn't go anywhere.

> which we considered our test of human-level intelligence.

No, this is a strawman. Turing explicitly posits that the question "can machines think?" is ill-posed in the first place, and proposes the "imitation game" as something that can be studied meaningfully — without ascribing to it the sort of meaning commonly described in these arguments.

More precisely:

> The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

----

> We never talk about it now because we obviously blew past it years ago.

No. We talk about it constantly, because AI proponents keep bringing it up fallaciously. Nothing like "obviously blowing past it years ago" actually happened; cited examples look nothing like the test actually described in Turing's paper. But this is still beside the point

> There are some interesting ways in which AI remains inferior to human intelligence but it is also obviously already superior in many ways already.

Computers were already obviously superior to humans in, for example, arithmetic, decades ago.

> It remains remarkable to me how common denial is when it comes to what AI can or cannot actually do.

It is not "denial" to point out your factual inaccuracies.