FWIW:

- The ab nihilo mention of 'Turing explains' (explains what? where?) feels odd.

- The quotes are redundant, but seem designed to make the statement sound weighty.

- "It's" is a common grammatical error in corpuses, but not one likely to be made by any kind of practising philosopher.

- The concept of "meaning" is one implicitly eschewed by the Turing test, so the discussion of meaning here seems odd.

- The comment is circular: unless we build minds, we won't build things that pass the Turing tests, which are minds.

Are we trying to build minds? Or is all the effort going into building automated money savers that take away trivial jobs? That is the main point here.