Most of the AI literature has moved past talking about the Turing test.
The metric now after goal post moving is "the Embodied Turing test".
That is, the test that someone interacting with two different people (standing in front of them, taking a walk, etc) would not be able to determine with statistical significance which one of the two is an AI.
So effectively, 'west world', is the new benchmark that the literature is interested in passing.
I wouldn’t call it “the literature” really, some literature for sure. I don’t think a lot of people in the field accept that an AI isn’t generally intelligent unless it’s a physically fake human.
I still have faith in the Turing test, but I’ve been saying since the 80s it has to pass against an informed interrogator who understands how to test for general intelligence. I’m not so bothered that it has to pass as human specifically, but it needs to demonstrate credible cognitive faculties and reasoning skills.
Current LLMs still really aren’t there at all yet. They do have the glimmerings of genuine knowledge and reasoning ability, and represent fantastic progress I’d given up on seeing in my lifetime. They’re still just tools though with significant limitations.
The metric now after goal post moving is "the Embodied Turing test".
That is, the test that someone interacting with two different people (standing in front of them, taking a walk, etc) would not be able to determine with statistical significance which one of the two is an AI. So effectively, 'west world', is the new benchmark that the literature is interested in passing.