You can take from that what you will, but I suspect it will always seem as though we've made no progress, because anything we learn to emulate we necessarily understand well enough that it will no longer seem magical. I wouldn't put it past us to start thinking of humans as automata before we declare that machines can think.
You can actually do it. 100 year old people usually don't follow news on artificial intelligence, so they will act genuine.
We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse.
By every measure Turing himself considered, the Turing test has been passed. It's only the post-gpt-2 peanut gallery that have insisted on moving the goalposts straight into mysticism and magical thinking.
Machines will be better at everything humans can do, and accomplish things we cannot.
We are living in interesting times, different from anything that's come before - we exist in relation to systems that are learning to think like us.
The mechanisation of knowledge work has been ongoing (at least) since human accounting with beans - before writing; before number; maybe, even before language.
The humans' real fear will rise when they meet with superior argument.
Really depends on whether “art” means “making drawings of things” or “making people feel something”. It’s also a very narrow domain. Dall-e can’t sculpt clay (for example), even if you attached a robot arm, without essentially replacing a bunch of the training system logic. Out of the box Dall-e has no provision to manipulate anything to produce art.
Orwell’s 1984, written in the mid forties, has pop songs written by machine.
In both cases the AI composed works are described in the same way Id describe modern AI composing things - dreadful.
The concept of AI is quite old. Even Medieval Europe you had philosophers making quite penetrating insights on mechanical creativity. But, lacking a computer, there was no point continuing their train of thought
[1] amazing, far seeing, book. Very short, maybe a two hour read.
Jules Verne wrote about a trip to the moon. It doesn't follow that he would regard the NASA missions as old-hat.
Even the idea of requiring enough data to build a good system is fairly new. As late as the 1980s, expert systems were the dominant approach to artificial intelligence, and they didn't require information corpi at all but instead involved experts programming in all of the rules they could think of for a system.
I mean, people seem to hold human intelligence as something extraordinary, despite having no idea what precisely makes us intelligent. Isn't that kind of pulling the cart before the horse? For all we know, humans might just be biomechanical robots operating on the "stimuli" inputted to us, behaving in completely predictable ways, no different than how computers operate on the "data" inputted to them.
Still, they possess an undeniable degree of intelligence. They also have cultures, that is, forms of knowledge passed between generations by teaching, not genetically, and differing between packs.
I suspect that a robot as intelligent as a dog, but with an easier interface, would be a great help to humans.
OTOH, what currently is called "AI" is mostly deep learning, a very important part of cognition and perception. Without modern results in computer perception and low-level cognition and control, a "more general" AI would be blind, deaf, and paralyzed in the real world.
I suspect that the older approaches based on more supervised ways to construct cognitive functions have not born all the fruit they could, and may eventually help create an AI with better higher-level reasoning. They are just not in vogue now, so the best researchers and fattest grants are in deep learning and around. Also, the hardware may not be there yet.
(A similar thing happened to neural networks. The first, one-layer, neural network was the perceptron created in 1958 [1] The approach, while valid and constantly developed, did not see a real uptake until early 2010s, when incomparably better hardware finally became available.)
If you look at the people who have the skills to make such machines larger, those who built bigger and better vacuum tubes and larger cathode displays with more oomph, they all appear to have disappeared, replaced by the misguided miniaturizers.
Your last point is already addressed in the paper, argument #3.
That must be why we haven't solved P = NP yet. This would take a person with twice the L1 cache to accomplish.
I know it's a bit hyperbolic but Skynet comes to mind every day I use Copilot. It's just amazing the kind of things it can suggest/adapt to. We're definitely on some path of progress.
Unfortunately of course, the people who might have some of the skills needed to actually build such a thing (at the bricks and mortar level anyway), are nearly those people whose understanding of what intelligence actually is may be less than ideal. As a hint, it has nothing to do with passing tests or other such mundanity.
A more interesting approach would be to consider language - if cooperating entities can be constructed that (eventually yet spontaneously) created ways to communicate between each other, then maybe some progress has been made.
Further, if we appreciate that any idea, discovery, anything, can be communicated to even the most recently discovered humans in their own language (though we may need to build up the various concepts from basic terms), and that no such feat is possible with the other animals, then we might wonder if another intelligence (artificial or otherwise) might be able to encode concepts that are unreachable in our (any of our) language and thus thoughts - or, alternatively, that our (any of our) language is conceptually complete in some fundamental sense, and so there simply cannot be such 'higher' intelligence (artificial of otherwise).