[derbOac]

I've often felt that a better version is not whether a person can guess that it's AI or a human, but whether people behave and feel differently with an AI or human.

That's vague and covers a universe of criteria — mood, satisfaction with the conversation, actual behavior and so forth — but it also I think is a more realistic gauge of AI performance. It's probably unattainable but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it is attainable within confidence then it's a pretty powerful AI.

There are probably some people who would be ok with some AI for some purposes.

[masswerk]

In a sense, the question of the "intelligent machine" is somewhat self-contradictory: To us, the question of intelligence matters as a preposition or qualifying term, for to what extent, probability and prospects we may pose an appeal to sympathy, moral and ethics. (In other words, it is not about trust in any realistic faculties, but about judgement – and then, to what extent we may trust in this.) However, this prospect doesn't fit well our expectations towards machines, which are all about repeatability and reproducible results in given tolerances… (Compare ChatGPT's so-called winter depression and the arising need to plead and argue with the device for any complex results. As the device gains in the emotional domain, its worth in the application domain radically decreases.)