Interesting mix of philosophy, science, and technology... all stemming from with what it means to be the human confederate in the judge/computer/confederate trio that makes up the Turing test (and what it would take to win the "most human human" award). From there, we explore what makes humans unique (and how we've changed our minds over the centuries), how computers might be challenging how we define intelligence and creativity, what about human conversation & human behavior is difficult for computers to mimic, etc.

I'd never really thought much about the human confederate's perspective in the Turing test... the immediate interest is usually in how one would develop a program that can hold a conversation, or what it would be like to have to judge from a text-based conversation the authenticity of the maybe-human on the other end... but the human confederate has it's own challenges if one wants to not be mistaken for a computer.