> programs built on a simplified version of brain neural networks

Not even close. "Neural networks" in code are nothing like real neurons in real biology. "Neural networks" is a marketing term. Treating them as "doing the same thing" as real biological neurons is a huge error

>that train on a corpus of nearly everything humans expressed in writing

It's significantly more limited than that.

>and that can pass the Turing test with flying colors, scares me

The "turing test" doesn't exist. Turing talked about a thought experiment in the very early days of "artificial minds". It is not a real experiment. The "turing test" as laypeople often refer to it is passed by IRC bots, and I don't even mean markov chain based bots. The actual concept described by Turing is more complicated than just "A human can't tell it's a robot", and has never been respected as an actual "Test" because it's so flawed and unrigorous.