No, we didn’t. There was plenty of disagreement over it. Heck, the Chinese Room is very popular rejection fundamentally of the premise of it.
That aside, even if in a blind scenario (where the builders didn’t know the criteria used to test) being able to fool humans in linguistic interaction would be reasonably likely to be a good test of general intelligence, LLM’s are about as an obvious of a direct and deliberate attempt to Goodhart’s Law the Turing Test as one could imagine.
Using a particular capacity to test a more general capacity is obviously vulnerable to systems build to specialize in the tested capacity, as opposed to those that have it as a consequence of general ability.
If historians are looking back to decide the point, by definition doesn't it have to be in the past? Historians looking back to the future doesn't make sense...
I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past.