Then you're fucked, no matter what you do or don't do.

It has little application in the humanities, where illogical arguments are considered to be OK, as long as the conclusions are politically correct.

Two million miles on a specially designed test track that lacks:
1. actual pedestrians (just cardboard cutouts)
2. weather other than sunny and warm
3. conditions other than daylight
4. other drivers who are dangerous jerks.

When a self-driving car can pass an actual driver's test, in all weathers and all traffic conditions, I will be impressed. Until then, it's all hype.

Explain?

It stayed the same?

If you read Turing, you would see that any Turing-like test Is intended to act as a filter: if the machine fails, then it is clearly not intelligent. If it passes, that just means that the test was too easy.

Where does this end? Probably never.

Ennius' work took place 15 years ago. Since then, no one has been able to replicate it, and has since been discarded.

Surprise twist: Both are true!

No, but you are pompous twit who tries to avoid all tough questions with trivial gimmicks like that.

You are totally full of shit.

Why would I study an idiot blowhard like Kurzweil?

In other words,
"A machine can't be sentient because I define sentience as something that a machine can't have".
Well, bully for you.

That goes for you, too.

Since you don't know what sentience is either, you have no business declaring where or when the creation of a sentient being will occur.

The unconditional basic income exists now: it's called welfare. Know anybody on welfare who is glad of it?
Neither do I.

The French aristocrats didn't have killer robots and a total surveillance society on their side.