Speaking from a clinical NScience place, the question so far regarding General AI, as opposed to the AI which can do chess, Go, spell checkers, and highly specialized tasks but NOT a sum of many tasks, There is this question.

How do we know what kind of progress towards AI has been made without any standards to measure such ?

Have just reviewed in detail the claims made by Blake Lemoine, and then ran repeatedly into the comments that the conversation with Lambda had been edited for "flow and clarity". At once the biggest imaginable red flags went up.

IOW, how can we KNOW the system is AI, or not, esp. because we know and have many, many examples of AI, which can at times sound OK, but then commit one to many huge blunders, which defeats such a claim. AI MUST be supervized . & that's what Lemoine did with Lambda, to remove the junk, and leave only a modified text which made sense.

That's not on. That's not AI. Does the turing test work? What's the empirical testing show? Nothin as it's not been done yet. Again, no landmarks. CAn it speak and make coherent statements and converse with a human being? Not yet, but if so then is it AI, general?

The hugest problem with AI is that not having a good model of how brain works, structure/function is the problem. If AI eng'rs. don't know WHAT functions they are simulating in brain, how can they create those? IOW, if yer don't know where yer going, how can we get there? But by endless trial/error, and brute force.

BUT if we KNOW what brain processes are being used in brain, and Anil Seth, Dr. Karl Friston, and I do to some extent, THEN we can get there. They need a good brain model to create a AI sim.

What creates most all growth? Again we have good answers to that. What creates Dawkins memes, and how does that work in brain? How do those spread, and why? We know. We have data on how it comes about Reliably.

For instance how does your brain create info from sensory inputs? No one has ever really broken that down to brain processes ongoing. How do we create creativity? Again, no simple, sensible answers.

Well, I have some of those. And with specifics of brain processes can answer, largely those questions including a general algorithm for problem solving.

Aut viam inveniam, aut faciam. Latin from Hanniba'al. 3rd C. BC.

And if you can understand that, then you can figure out what computer processes/functions need to be made which can simulate human info processing. To whit:

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

And it goes a long way to answering how to create creativity and how to solve the problem, generally, of problem solving. And NP is NOT equal to P, either. We add info to get P. More info in P means NP is not equal to P. That's the big key, deep point.

Does the Chatbot make sense, or not? Does the bing search give any good answers? How do we know?