"If you accept that humans are intelligent, and that they can judge that another human is intelligent by conversing with them across a text-only channel, then you run into a big problem by stating that a Turing-test-passing algorithm is unintelligent. "
I would say that passing the Turing test is a necessary but insufficient measure of complete human intelligence. It would be astounding, and a major feat in the field, but there must be more to the definition of human intellect than simply carrying on a text conversation.
I would think it depends entirely on the subject matter of the text conversation. It's probably possible today to make a chat bot that can converse about (nothing other than) the weather.
Agreed. But we'd have to agree on what standard of intelligence we're considering. Turing is only one standard. And I would say not a very high one if being compared to human intelligence.
Eh.. The Turing test (Turing was a man, and the Turing test is a concept posed by him) is restricted in the way that it is to eliminate irrelevant factors such as robotics.
The concept itself that is presented is quite sound: If you cannot tell that it's not intelligent, how can you say that it is not?
I cannot think of a better test. The only weak point as I see it does not say anything one way or the other about intelligence that is fundamentally different from our own (for example: doesn't happen to use natural language).
I would say that passing the Turing test is a necessary but insufficient measure of complete human intelligence. It would be astounding, and a major feat in the field, but there must be more to the definition of human intellect than simply carrying on a text conversation.