Until recently, philosophy of artificial intelligence seemed to be mostly about arguments why the Turing test was not a useful benchmark for intelligence. Pretty much everyone who had ever thought about the problem seriously had come to the same conclusion.

The fundamental issue was the assumption that general intelligence is an objective property that can be determined experimentally. It's better to consider intelligence an abstraction that may help us to understand the behavior of a system.

A system where a fixed LLM provides answers to prompts is little more than a Chinese room. If we give the system agency to interact with external systems on its own initiative, we get qualitatively different behavior. The same happens if we add memory that lets the system scale beyond the fixed context window. Now we definitely have some aspects of general intelligence, but something still seems to be missing.

Current AIs are essentially symbolic reasoning systems that rely on a fixed model to provide intuition. But the system never learns. It can't update its intuition based on its experiences.

Maybe the ability to learn in a useful way is the final obstacle on the way towards AGI. Or maybe once again, once we start thinking we are close to solving intelligence, we realize that there is more to intelligence than what we had thought so far.

I like the line of thinking from an earlier commenter: when an AI company no longer has any humans working, we'll know we're there.

There is a different way I look at this.

Humans will never accept we created AI, they'll go so far as to say we were not intelligent in the first place. That is the true power of the AI effect.

Supranormal GDP growth is my bar. When its actually able to get around bottlenecks and produce value on a societal level

To my knowledge Turing test has not been blown out of the water. The forms I saw were time limited and participants were not pushed hard to interrogate.