Did Turing ever describe the test in detail?

Yes, basically a person C is allowed to interact with actors A and B of which one is a human and the other is a computer. C's task is to determine who of A and B is the computer.

One should remember that the turing test is not a test of the computer's ability to be intelligent, but rather the ability to mimic human behaviour. Although one might have mixed feelings about impersonating a teenage kid on IRC, it's only a matter of throwing more computing power to pass more stronger versions of the test.

One conclusion is that the Turing Test is not that useful for measuring intelligence. On the other hand, if a computer gets good enough with mimicking human behaviour, and if it is able to make good enough decisions, it's will become useful, even though it's not "intelligent".

In other words, if person C is unable to distinguish between actor A (computer) and actor B (human), the Turing Test is actually a test about the abilities of C - not A. Makes sense.

I wish I could get the link working for the chattertbot. There was a point in my life when I was very interested in artificial intelligence and chat-bots.Used a bunch of them. I used to use MS-Agent, and stumbled across one called Cynthia 3.0. It was an AI bot, where you could add intelligence to the bot via editing a .txt file.

One thing always prevalent in these AI systems is that there is hardly any subjectivity to the way they answer questions. This is key when making a believable human AI.

Most everything a person proclaims as "fact" would still fall under the category of "opinion" where "truth" is concerned (in my opinion).

How can a computer have a believable opinion when opinions change with the society? So, an opinion about the shape of the earth today would be different from an opinion about the shape of the earth, thousands of years ago. And will this opinion change believably when new information is introduced?

Another way to trick these things is to ask the same question over and over, changing the sentence slightly, where eventually you have altered the question altogether. They never are able to infer the meaning of a sentence when you do this. Heck, I have a hard time doing it myself with those 200 question interview quizzes. haha.

I so wish I could try it out though.

Saw this quote on youtube:

with 3 question he failed to convince me that he is even 8 .
i asked which is bigger a dog or a car ?
the answer was : i hate dogs when they bark .

When asking Google "which is bigger a dog or a car" it points to a lot of articles like "Dogs have bigger carbon footprint than a car". Definitely falls under the category of "opinionated" answers.