People get it wrong about the Turing Test: it doesn't measure the intelligence of the entity (human or machine) at one end of the conversation, but the gullibility of the human at the other. I understand that the original paper said "Can machines think?", then proposed a test for whether a human could tell the difference between a human and a machine. It's also been suggested that Turing was a prankster ....

It may or may not have been Chomsky who suggested that "can machines think" is roughly equivalent to "can submarines swim". Further research is in order.