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.

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.

Do explain, mwengler: Are you arguing that we should upvote Andy's claim that bugs are supposedly intentional jokes played on us by a playfully childlike software?

If you believe I'm misconstruing/misinterpreting what Andy has been saying, I'll show you the original text of this post of his, before he edited it.

This is another call for respectful dialog on the topic. Takers?

A brief word on credentials. I am a 23/24-year "veteran" of the software industry. I have worked on many types of software at Microsoft, and on simulation and optimization at Electronic Arts. I am an information scientist first, and an "armchair" theoretical physicist (with a pet TOE), and a hands-on consciousness researcher.

Thank you for the civil dialog.

We don't judge dogs only by how human they are

No, but we do judge dogs by how intelligent they are. And there are certain dogs that are more intelligent than others. Intelligence != human intelligence. Furthermore, most software only interacts with other software/hardware/firmware. To the extent that it interacts with meatspace that interaction is mediated by a person. AI would be software that interacts efficiently with meatspace directly without human intervention.

If AI is software is AI, then human intelligence is DNA is human intelligence. An obvious non-sequitur.

Look for people who need your kindness. Things will open up for you.

I myself held this position until I, quite recently as a matter of fact, read some fiction which tipped off an existential crisis, putting me on the verge of a panic attack. Since then, I am more wary of dangerous ideas.

Ignorance might be bliss, but wisdom is gathered by those who survive their youth.