As I have said elsewhere, I will agree we have achieved true AI when a program, uncoached, creates a persuasive argument that it is intelligent. One nice feature of this test is that you don't have to define intelligence precisely beforehand. Of course, that does not give a specification for developers to work to, but that is the case we have now, anyway.
Nice to know your criteria. There have been many. The trick is not to decide when you'll 'agree' (whatever your agreement is worth), but to form a consensus in the discussion.
I've known people who've been unable to create a persuasive argument that they are intelligent (or unwilling), and I've know intelligent dogs unable to argue for anything, persuasive or not. I don't fancy your chances of having your definition become the standard.
The possible downside to appealing to consensus is that it doesn't always agree with you. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, but perhaps that's because I think people will recognize AI when it shows up.
