Look at contemporary accounts of what people thought a conversation with a Turing-test-passing machine would look like. It's clear they had something very different in mind.
Realizing problems with previous hypotheses about what might make a good test, is not the same thing as choosing a standard and then revising it when it's met.
I think any time a 50+ year old problem is solved, it should be considered a Big Deal, regardless of how the solution changes our understanding of the original problem.
It is, in my mind, very interesting to see such success in generating readable, human-like prose. And I feel like we've learned a lot from the exercise - about human cognition, but also about e.g. how con artists can be as effective as they are.
Realizing problems with previous hypotheses about what might make a good test, is not the same thing as choosing a standard and then revising it when it's met.