If your standard for how hard the interrogator should try isn't "as hard as they can", then what do you propose instead? It's always possible to fool a sufficiently lazy human, so you need something.
> It sounds like what you want is something akin to a comprehensive test for AGI.
Since you mentioned Wikipedia, their first proposed test for AGI is Turing's:
I (generally, not from you) see a motte-and-bailey game, where the strongest versions of Turing's test are described as equivalent to AGI, and then favorable results on weaker versions are used to claim we've achieved it. I think those weaker results are significant, probably in economically important ways, though mostly socially destructive. I think this preprint is mostly good. I don't like that conflation, though.
> It sounds like what you want is something akin to a comprehensive test for AGI.
Since you mentioned Wikipedia, their first proposed test for AGI is Turing's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
I (generally, not from you) see a motte-and-bailey game, where the strongest versions of Turing's test are described as equivalent to AGI, and then favorable results on weaker versions are used to claim we've achieved it. I think those weaker results are significant, probably in economically important ways, though mostly socially destructive. I think this preprint is mostly good. I don't like that conflation, though.