AI and the "Turing test"
we're still nowhere close to artificial intelligence or even a computer that could pass the Turing test
"artificial intelligence", without qualification, is so broad a term as to be meaningless. We already have it, or we may well never be "close" to it, or anything in between, depending on how it's defined.
True, we don't have any machine "intelligence" that's similar to the replicants in Blade Runner (barring secret magical technology). But as various people have already pointed out, they're supposed to be genetically-engineered humans, not machines, at least in the film.
As for the "Turing test": First, yes, we have chatbots that have passed the Turing test, as it's generally conceived by the sort of people who think it's meaningful, against various human judges. Some observers quibble over the results, but since the test isn't meaningful, they're just wasting their time.
Robert French explained three years ago why the Turing test is pointless. Worse, treating the test as an actual rubric for judging automated systems in some way fundamentally misunderstands the point of Turing's "imitation game" and the entire "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" essay.
It's not a decision procedure for determining when we tip over the edge into an era of thinking machines. It's a philosophical proposition about what fundamental grounds are properly suited for considering what a mechanical intelligence might be.