@Frank Apisa,
When Turing developed his test the required feat undoubtedly seemed like it would be a significant sign of machine intelligence. As this "passing" of the test shows, it's not. It would seem that Turing may not have sufficiently considered the gullibility of humans in the formulation of his test.
After many years of the ploy being used and receiving widespread attention, I still regularly get e-mail from some purported official of a government or bank promising to share a multi-million dollar windfall if I agree to be his agent in the US --- details of how I need only send him $5,000 for administrative fees to be provided upon confirming one's willingness.
Either this means there are lot of hapless, would-be cons out there still trying a play that no longer works, or enough people are still falling for it to keep if vital.
This software con was missing the classic and crucial element of all successful bunko schemes: the mark's greed, but it still relied on that other important one: gullibility.
I think intelligent machines are inevitable, but I'm dubious about how this event is any indicator of how far away the emergence of AI may be.