Read this post. Also consider that the test proposed comes from Ada Lovelace, who predated the Turing test by a long way.

You can see a random number generator with unpredictable events.

Indeed. There's a lot of misinformation out there about what Turing originally specified. The test is NOT simply "Can a computer have a reasonable conversation with an unsuspecting human so that the human will not figure out that the computer is not human?" By that standard, ELIZA passed the Turing test many decades ago.

The test also doesn't have a some sort of magical "fool 30%" threshold -- Turing simply speculated that by the year 2000, AI would have progressed enough that it could fool 30% of "interrogators" (more on that term below). The 30% is NOT a threshold for passing the test -- it was just a statement by Turing about how often AI would pass the test by the year 2000.

So what was the test?

The test involves three entities: an "interrogator," a computer, and a normal human responder. The interrogator is assumed to be well-educated and familiar with the nature of the test. The interrogator has five minutes to question both the computer and the normal human in order to determine which is the actual human. The interrogator is assumed to bring an intelligent skepticism to the test -- the standard is not just trying to have a normal conversation, but instead the interrogator would actively probe the intelligence of the AI and the human, designing queries which would find even small flaws or inconsistencies that would suggest the lack of complex cognitive understanding.

Turing's article actually gives an example of the type of dialogue the interrogator should try -- it involves a relatively high-level debate about a Shakespearean sonnet. The interrogator questions the AI about the meaning of the sonnet and tries to identify whether the AI can evaluate the interrogator's suggestions on substituting new words or phrases into the poem. The AI is supposed to detect various types of errors requiring considerable fluency in English and creativity -- like recognizing that a suggested change in the poem wouldn't fit the meter, or ir wouldn't be idiomatic English, or the meaning would make an inappropriate metaphor in the context of the poem.

THAT'S the sort of "intelligence" Turing was envisioning. The "interrogator" would have these complex discussions with both the AI and the human, and then render a verdict.

Now, compare that to the situation in TFS where the claim is that the Turing test was "passed" by a chatbot fooling people. That's crap. The chatbot in question, as parent noted, was not even fluent in the language of the interrogator, it was deliberately evasive and nonresponsive (instead of Turing's example of AI's and humans having willing debates with the interrogator), there was no human to compare the chatbot to, the interrogators were apparently not asking probing questions to determine the nature of the "intelligence" (and it's not even clear whether the interrogators knew what their role was, the nature of the test, whether they might be chatting with AI, etc.).

Thus, Turing's test -- as originally described -- was nowhere close to "passed." Today's chatbots can't even carry on a normal small-talk discussion for 30 seconds with a probing interrogator without sounding stupid, evasive, non-responsive, mentally ill, and/or making incredibly ridiculous errors in common idiomatic English.

In contrast, Turing was predicting that interrogators would have to be debating artistic substitutions of idiomatic and metaphorical English usage in Shakespeare's sonnets to differentiate a computer from a real (presumably quite intelligent) human by the year 2000. In effect, Turing seemed to assume that he would talk to the AI in the way he might debate things with a rather intelligent peer or colleague.

Turing was wrong about his predictions. But that doesn't mean his test is invalid -- to the contrary, his standard was so ridiculously high that we are nowhere close to having AI that could pass it.

lol their test is beaten by a random number generator. Oh well.

I don't think "a chatbot isn't AI and hasn't been since the 1960s when they were invented, whether you call it a doctor or a Ukrainian kid doesn't make any difference" counts as shifting the goalposts.

Furthermore, reproducible results are an important part of science. Let him release his source code, or explain his algorithm so we can reproduce it. Anything less is not science.

If you read the news from Europe these days, they seem to be doing exactly that.

You think that employees of defense contractors make up a plurality of voters?

Well, you know it's not going to happen when they say, "Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources." I don't think either major party in America would support that, and other countries are actively hostile to nuclear.

However, more interesting is the idea that every new car sold in America will be electric. For that to happen, it would mean electric cars are cost competitive with gasoline cars. I can't see from the paper why they think it will happen within that timeframe.

Don't be deceived by the cheap consumer goods you buy.......the US still has a huge manufacturing sector, and large-scale construction is one of the things it can still do.

I don't dismiss the science. If you have nothing scientific to say, be gone.

Restructuring the grid to accommodate renewables ("smart grid" design) involves installing new meters that continuously send rich information about your power usage and which can control start and stop times for your large appliances. Sorry, but the flat-earth lobby has already decided we can't have those smart meters.

No, use your Bitcoin mining rig to toast bread and cook rice while in operation.

We don't want to send nuclear waste anywhere. The long-term radiation in it represents reusable, unburned fuel.

Hydro, the only baseload renewable, renders hundreds of square miles uninhabitable when operating normally.