You could say the same thing about computers. Look, I think neural nets have made significant progress in image, video, and audio processing, but until their practical results are understood at a theoretical level, I'm not convinced that we're any closer to AGI than we were 5 years ago, beyond the idea that "with enough compute power, an intelligence will emerge."
I was just commenting on how you weren't really backing up your statement that parent had 'been had'. He thinks neural networks could eventually lead to AGI. You said he was wrong because neural networks aren't really a good model of the brain. My point is we don't know that something has to be a good model of the brain to lead us to AGI.
There's no reason to believe neural nets in 2016 will bridge the gap more so than folks saying this about nets in 2000 vs in 1990 vs 1980. The introduction of GPUs, more data, and variations in the models have lead to real improvement in specific tasks, but even those get stuck again. The leap to AGI is unclear if that's what's meant. You may be referring to synthesis techniques... but same thing. (They are cool though!)
Again, I'm not making the claim that neural nets will lead to AGI. I was only commenting on the claim that they can't or won't just because they don't accurately model the human brain.
Propulsion could eventually lead to near-FTL human travel.