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.
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.