Yes, the Turing test has been misunderstood for a long time. Turing published it, though - it wasn't some offhand comment he made and it wasn't intellectually lazy.
> The only important part are observed outcomes and capabilities.
That's wishful thinking. Not even an engineer would say that. The stability of a state is just as important as achieving it. This is trivially and more intuitively demonstrated with other more down-to-earth identity statements such as "I'm a billionaire" and "the building is standing".
I think we can confidently say LLMs probabilistically achieve a perceived state that is remarkably similar to intelligence, but crumbles upon inspection and seeing it "in motion" so to speak. The same happens to AI-generated images.
I'm not sure why this sparks so much debate every time. If we're looking for a fountain of "realism", you're not going to beat reality and nature itself. All else will eventually have tells that they are not real.
It also has little impact on the dangerous use cases.
You're jumping the gun talking about "job replacement". We have not thought about it enough from that engineering angle. It's still very early days. That engineering is going to require people. :-)
It's baffling that people cannot see the obvious contradiction in simultaneously asserting a system is missing a crucial property whose effects cannot be observed.
[1] It can be invisible. The important part is that its effects are observed.
The flaws are easily observable to everyone. I said as much in the comment you're replying to. Your argument here isn't going to change that.
Yeah. Do you think Roman arches were unstable? Guess you don't know much about history too.
>The flaws are easily observable to everyone. I said as much in the comment you're replying to. Your argument here isn't going to change that.
Then it should be pretty easy to enlighten us. What test of intelligence do LLMs fail that all humans pass ?