[translocation]

I would argue that ELIZA, and the chatbots that have been programmed since, are not solutions to the Turing test.

Have you ever tried holding an actual conversation with a chatbot? They almost invariably fail the real-life Turing test within two or three messages. They parse natural language incorrectly, they can't keep track of the topic of conversation, and they often reply with non-sequitor errors.

Certainly, chatbots can appear to act with intelligence in certain situations. Given enough back-and-forth communication, however, a human will always realize that the bot is just parroting words and phrases that are statistically relevant to the human's questions.

I don't think it's unreasonable to define Turing test success as the ability to consistently fool ordinary human beings through intelligent communication- and that, so far, has not been accomplished.

[brudgers]

>"Given enough back-and-forth communication, however, a human will always realize that the bot is just parroting words and phrases that are statistically relevant to the human's questions."

That however is not the Turing Test at all. Here is what Turing actually wrote:

    I believe that in about fty years' time it will be possible, 
    to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about
    109, to make them play the imitation game so well that
    an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent 
    chance of making the right identication after ve minutes of 
    questioning. 

http://orium.homelinux.org/paper/turingai.pdf