> The only remaining are language-related

That is a gigantic over-simplification. All machines are application specific, even machine-learning based ones. They all require human supervision, whether through goal setting or fixing errors.

There are some areas where machines are better than humans, and playing Go is now one of them, but that doesn't mean machines will replace humans in all facets at any given point in time. We grow, our tools grow, and the cycle repeats.

That, and towel-folding [1]. Humans have a pretty clear edge on that.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo&ab_channel=RLLbe...

Skill related. I'd be interesting to see how quickly driving AIs take to beat the best human drivers, in a weight-equal vehicle. An algorithmic competitor in formula one, would be interesting.

Not true, humans are better than computers at Starcraft, even despite AI's tremendous APM advantage.

How about walking and image recognition.

I see "AI" doing well in games that have simple inputs, a limited range of legal outputs, and relatively easy "goodness" measures.

I see nothing that might be able to tell us why gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass, for example, or any moves in that direction. This "AI" is good at simple games.