While it was the complaint, the game did mention a required PSN account on all storefronts. This was disabled when auth/login was unplayably bad on launch week, then not re-enabled until a while later (with a week long heads up for new players and a month long heads up for existing players). Nobody actually got locked out of the game, and as my PSN account is registered somewhere I do not live, I don't think anyone would've been stopped playing by the change if it had been pushed.
What we "won" and sony "learned" is that they can't get accurate metrics on playercount since HD2's statistics aren't being tracked correctly by the game's session system and the playerbase is uncooperative. In this era where data is king, this just means we'll stop seeing Sony funded helldivers ads on youtube while they market their giants that correctly report the data they're looking for that helps them make a userbase that prints money.
Oh, and we marred the all-time and recent review score from overwhelmingly positive. Guarantee you the successful action was the steam refund count on the game - truly unsolvable problem. As refund requests that don't meet an automatic metric need a reply, and resolution usually takes ~an hour, the 6 digit refund count was not realistically solvable without rolling the requirement for a legitimate PSN account back. You can track how many total refund requests steam has day by day, as this is a public count in steam's support page. There were 800k more than the average weekend.
Tl;dr: while the complaint was this, the reality was not. The review bomb hurt arrowhead's relationship with sony more than it hurt sony. The refund bomb didn't cause steam to change policies this time but damn if it isn't justified now.
The same thing actually passing a turing test would require. You've obviously read the words "Turing test" somewhere and thought you understood what it meant, but no robot we've ever produced as a species has passed the turing test. It EXPLICITLY requires that intelligence equal to (or indistinguishable from) HUMAN intelligence is shown. Without a liar reading responses, no AI we'll produce for decades will pass the turing test.
No large language model has intelligence. They're just complicated call and response mechanisms that guess what answer we want based on a weighted response system (we tell it directly or tell another machine how to help it "weigh" words in a response). Obviously with anything that requires massive amounts of input or nuance, like language, it'll only be right about what it was guided on, which is limited to areas it is trained in.
We don't have any novel interactions with AI. They are regurgitation engines, bringing forward sentences that aren't theirs piecemeal. Given ten messages, I'm confident no major LLM would pass a Turing test.