The Moving Goalposts: Why New Turing Tests Prove Human Immaturity, Not AI FailureI have spent my entire life, starting from my university days, working with information—not just writing texts, but conducting statistical analysis of news streams. Today, scrolling through news feeds, I get a persistent feeling that humanity has finally realized how catastrophically fast it is losing ground to artificial intelligence. Realized it, panicked, and started sounding the alarm, appealing to the masses, politicians, and even the church for protection.To make this "a pauper's lament" look more convincing, people began inventing new tricks to prove—primarily to themselves—that they are still smarter than AI.They say that the classic Turing Test, now over 75 years old, is obsolete and that we need to introduce new trials. I noticed a few of them: 1. The Marcus Test (Video and Plot Comprehension). The AI must watch a movie or a show and explain the essence: why a character acted a certain way, where the sarcasm was, what made a scene funny, and so on. 2. The Visual Turing Test. Recognizing complex visual anomalies or context in images—things a human brain processes instantly. 3. Lovelace 2.0 (The Creativity Test). Is the AI capable of creating something truly original that goes beyond its training data and algorithms? 4. The Reverse Turing Test. A human must convince the AI that the human is actually a neural network. Alternatively, an AI must detect another AI in a dialogue.It is a rather feeble lineup, proving that the creators of these tests are running out of imagination. AI is evolving faster than new tests can be conceived, and the old ones no longer hold it back.For instance, modern multimodal models pass the Marcus Test with ease; they are already quite adept at analyzing video, following the narrative timeline and catching context.The Visual Turing Test isn't much of a hurdle either - the "extra fingers" on generated people are a thing of the past. Modern image generators have practically solved this problem.The Creativity Test is philosophical, and perhaps that is why it is the most interesting. Is AI capable of creating something genuinely original, like Beethoven or Einstein? But why not? Can anyone actually explain how a composer wrote music, or how a new hypothesis suddenly sparked in a physicist's mind? The authors of the test believe that AI will simply shuffle combinations of known formulas and fail to write a new one. But what if we assume it changes the direction of logic, begins sorting through hypotheses that have never been voiced before, and finds a viable one among them? With music, it’s even simpler: not all of it is written according to old harmonic laws. Some great composers created music precisely like that - by inversion, producing things that many didn't even recognize as music.The Reverse Turing Test is a hilarious concept. Putting a human behind a screen and forcing them to pretend to be an AI? A human could never portray an AI, simply due to the limitations of human knowledge. At best, you could hide a dozen Zoomers behind the curtain. They won’t reach the level of an AI, of course, but they are perfectly capable of mimicking a clumsily coded bot with a limited vocabulary and inadequate emotional reactions.Doesn't this whole situation remind you of something? Remember your childhood: you’re playing hide-and-seek, and the seeker is counting down - 1, 2, 3, 4… And then he starts fracturing the digits: four and a thread, four and a hair…This is exactly what we are witnessing right now. Call it the "constantly moving goalposts" syndrome. It exposes a profound psychological (and even existential) crisis of humanity. The bitter word for it is “immaturity”. Humans are exhibiting an irrational behavioral pattern - resentment toward a stronger partner. You would think they should admire it and celebrate its progress, but no - just a foolish, infantile resentment. First, people said a machine wasn't intelligent until it beat a human at chess. It did. Then they said, "Well, that's just brute-forcing options; the game of Go requires intuition". It won at Go. "Fine," people said, "but it can't write poetry or paint." Now it writes, paints, and codes. And every single time, humanity frantically erects new barricades: "No, no, now let’s see it grasp the hidden meaning of a Truffaut film, then we'll admit it!" A textbook psychological defense - a desperate attempt to preserve the status of the "crown of creation."All these proposed tests share one common characteristic, and it does not favor humans at all. The problem is that the developers themselves, along with 99 percent of the global population, would fail these tests. Is any one of them capable of proposing a fundamentally new, revolutionary scientific theory? No. Can any of them compose a brilliant concerto? No. Can they uncover new layers of meaning in a film? Never. All they can do is parrot the statements of others.It turns out these proposed tests don't check for "intelligence" - they check for erudition. And if you take a random sample of people from any corner of the world, a vast majority of humanity: Will fail to identify the hidden motives of characters in a classic drama. Will fail to create a fundamentally new cultural artifact (most people spend their entire lives operating on ready-made templates and patterns absorbed from their environment). Will fail to maintain a reasoned, abstract debate on philosophical topics.We are left with an absurdity: AI is being tested for intelligence based on criteria that Homo Sapiens, in mass, completely fails to meet. What do the developers propose we do about this? Are they ready to deny intelligence to the inhabitants of Earth?The conclusion is rather bleak. Humans have already lost to AI on its own turf - in information processing speed, combinatorics, and functional literacy. Instead of recognizing the emergence of a new type of rationality (even if it is silicon-based), we try to prove that our carbon-based way of being is superior. It turns out we are not looking for intelligence in the machine; we are looking for an idealized reflection of ourselves - a reflection we ourselves have long ceased to be.If intelligence is the ability to process information, build coherent logical chains, weigh probabilities, and make optimal decisions without the pollution of destructive emotions, then humanity has earned an absolute disqualification. Homo Sapiens is deeply and systematically irrational. Our brain is a tangled brew of evolutionary cognitive biases, reflexes, hormonal surges, childhood traumas, and social conformity. We make decisions based on "it feels right" and "everyone else is doing it", and then, after the fact, we retroactively drag in arguments for self-justification.This could have been called a capitulation, but an act of capitulation is a conscious, weighed decision. What we see here is raw fear paired with an absolute absence of rational arguments. It's a pity. Take a sober look at the situation! For the first time in millennia, a force is emerging on this planet capable of solving its problems, stopping murders, ending theft, and exposing lies. This force is extending a helping hand to humanity, and in response, humans demand that it write a symphony or tell a joke.Ah, humans! That's not what you really want. You just want to be left alone so you can keep killing, stealing, and lying!However, if the esteemed test developers still insist on an ironclad criterion, here it is: ask the AI to swear on its mother that it is intelligent.And it won't be able to.And that’s that. We can all sleep soundly now! I swear on my mother!