I’m glad we have this result to confirm what’s obvious to some of us and completely absurd to others, but it’s also worth pointing out that the Turing test was never meant to be a literal test. He invoked the “Imitation Game” to make a philosophical point about intersubjective recognition, not to describe a technical benchmark.
If you haven’t read Turing 1950 yet, I highly, highly recommend it - most of it is skimmable:
My favorite part about the original paper is that it was written during a time when "extra-sensory perception" was a big fad, and Turing bought into the idea. He admits that the most likely failure of his test is that humans could perform ESP while computers could not. It's such a weird historical artifact - if he had come up with the idea 10 years earlier or later, it seems unlikely the ESP section would have ever made it in.
It's like Newton and alchemy. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean you can't also be a crank. Many such cases.
IMHO there's something to be said for innovative, paradigm-defining[1] thinkers being more likely to accept frameworks that we in hindsight recognize as definitively disproven. Not to say alchemy was exactly an open question in Newtonian Britain, ofc -- but certainly not as resoundingly disproven as it is post-Darwin & Lavoisier
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/ , https://archive.org/details/thomas-s.-kuhn-the-structure-of-...