I was expecting something more, to be honest; after all the sensational news about it. But, he's still pretty good. Probably better than the few others AI bots I've seen.
Yep,it broke like 4 times while we were "talking".
I don't know how these people are testing A.I. such as this but it isn't able to answer some simple dynamic questions such as "what was my previous question?" and such. :D

Turing's idea seems to have required an A.I. "bot" with higher order critical-thinking skills. His ideal bot would be able to hold a sustained conversation, with the ability to defend its thoughts. Eugene is only able to answer direct questions, with constant re-directs, e.g. "Where do you live?" or "What is your profession or work?"

(I found out last evening that Eugene possesses a large repertoire of "dirty jokes" – if you ask the right perverted questions.  :-[  ;D )

The AI that wasn't: Why 'Eugene Goostman' didn't pass the Turing Test

That Eugene was programmed to be a non-native English speaker gave it an advantage; similarly that it was meant to be 13. We expect different things from pubescent boys whose first language isn’t English, compared to adult humans raised with the language. So Eugene already had a leg up—an interlocutor could explain away any failed communication.

But it’s not just that. The definition of “passing” the Turing test used for the examination is a particular interpretation of the paper’s prediction. Turing wrote that in 50 years, it would be possible for computers to play the “imitation game”—imitating human speech—“so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.” While this reads like a wildly optimistic prediction about computer intelligence, the organizers of the conference used it as literal criteria. The 30 judges spent five minutes talking to humans or machines, then recorded whether they felt their conversation partner was human or not.

Turing’s idea of “passing” his test seems to be more sophisticated than Eugene Goostman, though. Take his sample dialog:

Interrogator: In the first line of your sonnet which reads ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer's day', would not 'a spring day' do as well or better?

Computer: It wouldn't scan.

Interrogator: How about 'a winter's day'? That would scan all right.

Computer: Yes, but nobody wants to be compared to a winter's day.

Interrogator: Would you say Mr. Pickwick reminded you of Christmas?

Computer: In a way.

Interrogator: Yet Christmas is a winter's day, and I do not think Mr. Pickwick would mind the comparison

Computer: I don't think you're serious. By a winter's day one means a typical winter's day, rather than a special one like Christmas.

This is pretty sophisticated; the machine has access to facts and associations that go beyond the prompts given to it—knowing why scansion is important for a sonnet, for example, or the difference between Christmas and a regular winter’s day. By comparison, here’s Eugene:

Interrogator: In the first line of a sonnet which reads ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day,’ wouldn’t ‘a spring day’ be better?

Goostman: What makes you ask me this? Sound like you can't choose a right answer yourself! Rely on your intuition! :-) Maybe, let's talk about something else? What would you like to discuss?

Interrogator: I’d like to talk about poetry.

Goostman: Classics? I hope you aren't going to read "King Lear" or something like that to me right now :-)))

Interrogator: No, we can talk contemporary poetry. Do you like Patricia Lockwood's work?

Goostman:  I am only 13, so I'm attending school so far.

Interrogator: Oh, that’s when I first read Auden. Do you have a favorite poem?

Goostman: No, I haven't a best-liked poem! How could you imagine such a trash! Did I forget it or you really haven't told me about the place you are from?

Interrogator: Does it matter?

Goostman:  Maybe. I think *you* know the answer. Could you tell me what are you? I mean your profession.

Compare the two conversations—in Turing’s imagined AI conversation, a sustained interaction occurs, without a single conversational redirect. Meanwhile, Goostman is unable to hold up his end of the conversation. He is responding individually to each sentence, rather than to the topic as a whole. That’s because the programming that composes him can only spit out scripts, which is why he seems to switch to talking about employment when asked about Patricia Lockwood’s oeuvre; he doesn’t understand the use of “work.” Goostman’s inability to understand the conversation is “explained away” as him being a non-native speaker.