I am actually pretty disappointed in the overall response. It's not that I thought the post was great, but the massive downvoting and heckling struck me as the pathological autoimmune response of a sick system.

You didn't exactly handle the criticism with grace and humility either, since you asked.

1. Your phrasing was pseudo-mystical.
2. You used non-standard meanings for words.
3. It was a bunch of assertions, without a meaningful way to springboard into more discussion.
4. My first thought was "why doesn't this person recognize that something so out of the ordinary requires a lot more explication?"
5. I had to think much more than should have been necessary to even begin to grasp what you could even possibly have meant by saying things like "Software is becoming the new System".

Basically, it came across as a very low-effort post that seemed explicitly designed to create poor quality discussion.

I didn't downvote it, and was disappointed when I looked at it and it appear to have been downvoted simply for being wrong. My impression at the time was that the author was thinking sloppily, and was insisting on continuing the same pattern of thought despite corrective comments.

It appears to have been removed, so I can't go back and check my assumptions.

In my view, the only reason for downvoting something so far would be if it were completely off topic or the poster were aggressively insulting other users.

I did not mega-downvote, but I do feel it was a low-quality post.

The problem is that you made a big bold declaration whose meaning was pretty unclear (the post was very short too), anthropomorphized computer software (giving your post a mystical flavor) and seemed to be attacking the people interested in AI on this site without clear supporting reasons.

This at least is empirical.

This is another call for respectful dialog on the topic.

What exactly do you wish to discuss? Your post doesn't provide much in the way of starting points. Your fondness of assigning non-standard meaning to words (e.g. "AI") doesn't help much either.

Single-use software has its place, but it's not exactly singularity-inducing. Each piece of software can only do one thing. If you had a piece of software that could do anything, then you program that one piece of software and you and everyone else is set until the heat death of the universe.

Also, why bother with the word AI? Even if AGI isn't its own cluster in thingspace, we already have the word "software". Why replace it?

1. Your phrasing was pseudo-mystical.
2. You used non-standard meanings for words.
3. It was a bunch of assertions, without a meaningful way to springboard into more discussion.
4. My first thought was "why doesn't this person recognize that something so out of the ordinary requires a lot more explication?"
5. I had to think much more than should have been necessary to even begin to grasp what you could even possibly have meant by saying things like "Software is becoming the new System".

Basically, it came across as a very low-effort post that seemed explicitly designed to create poor quality discussion.

If you look at the way MIRI defines AGI you won't find it mentioning the turing test as the primary criteria.

As far as addressing the issue of the Turing test Bruce Sterling's article http://www.wired.com/2012/06/turing-centenary-speech-new-aesthetic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+wiredbeyond+%2528Blog+-+Beyond+the+Beyond%252FSterling%2529 is a lot better and a lot more fun.

Ok. Can you try tabooing the term AI and restating your thesis? Your definition differs drastically from what I would use, so I wonder if I'm reading unintended connotations.