All formalisms are idealizations. Like any other formalism natural language provides only an approximate description of the world. (See my blog of 24 Jan. 2017 and The Philosophy of Niels Bohr, H. J. Folse, North Holland, 1985) Having different senses and effectors Asa H will always have somewhat different concepts than humans have. (Even different humans have somewhat different concepts, one from another.) I suspect, then, that man-machine communication in natural language may never be as good (accurate) as is natural language communication between humans. The Turing test may be exactly the wrong way to try to judge intelligence. I believe that a lot of the current work on artificial intelligence may be over emphasizing "conversational intelligence."
There will also be an impact on the quality of machine reading systems.