The definition has always been the Turing test. Nobody has been able to provide a more precise answer.

I think an updated version of the turing test needs to be done: combine a generative language model with a generative face model and speech model to create an interactive avatar that can converse with an individual. The individual is allowed to ask any and all questions of a series of avatars (50% of the avatars are actually humans) and judge whether they are Human or Not Human. If a particular avatar model is able to fool a representative sample population into identifying avatar models from humans at a similar rate, then it passes the test.

This still doesn't really move the needle on any of the important questions about AI, but does hasten the public perception that proving self-awareness, consciousness, or agency exists in humans without depending on subjective experience is probably impossible.

I think it's kind of silly. The real metrics we will evaluate AI progress by is economic impact first, followed by political impact.

Then "true" AI "began to emerge" more than 20 years ago.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman

Meant AGI

"true" AI is one whose cognition is more advanced than that of existing AI