>Not even close. "Neural networks" in code are nothing like real neurons in real biology

Hence the simplified. The weights encoding learning and inteconnectedness and nonlinear activation and distributed representation of knowledge is already an approximation, even if the human architecture is different and more elaborate.

Whether the omitted parts are essential or not, is debatable. “Equations of motion are nothing like real planets" either, but they capture enough to predict and model their motion.

>The "turing test" doesn't exist. Turing talked about a thought experiment in the very early days of "artificial minds". It is not a real experiment.

It is not a real singural experiment protocol, but it's a well enough defined experimental scenario which for over half a century, it was kept as the benchmark of recognition of artificial intelligence, not by laymen (lol) but by major figures in AI research as well, figures like Minsky, McCarthy and others engaged with it.

That researchers haven't done Turing-test studies (taking the setup from turing and even called them that) is patently false. Including openly testing LLMs:

https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.290/

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313925121

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.08853

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08007

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S295016282...