A few thoughts on this:
First of all, that's part of a somewhat unfortunate fact: whatever AI you've used is almost certainly NOT the state of the art. Even GPT-3 is no longer leader of the pack in any regard except visibility— it had been surpassed last year and especially moreso this year.
https://super.gluebenchmark.com/leaderboard
Something like PaLM or Chinchilla would be a more effective gauge of where AI stands
Of course, second of all, the Turing Test is likely already passable. This because it's already been passed multiple times by earlier chatbots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman#Reaction
This because it only needs to convince 30% of judges that it's human.
If simple scripts, Markov Chains, and LSTM networks of the 2000s and early 2010s could do it, there's no reason why a modern transformer fine-tuned on dialogue couldn't crush the Turing Test as we speak. For whatever reason, it seems no one's tried.
Of course, there are some edits done to the Turing Test to make it more meaningful. For example, upping the score it needs to pass from 30% to 90% would go a long way. Also helping would be extending the amount of time the test is held, from a few minutes to half an hour or an hour or longer.
Personally, I look upon things like Eugene Goostman passing the Turing Test much the same way I look at that AI that beat a human at Go back in 2008.
Where it only won against a low-level champion, on a small 9x9 board. Goostman was given handicaps, such as being an ESL Ukrainian 14-year-old to "excuse" grammatical errors and non-sequiturs.
In comparison, AlphaGo won with no handicaps, fair and square. A modern transformer-powered dialogue agent should also be able to win fair and square, without need for any excuses.