Those goals are "research" in terms of "playing with the available tools to refine them".
On the strict technical sense, "Intelligence" in AI remains "to be able to provide some solution that could compete with that of a human solver".
On the large proper sense, "Intelligence" means "understanding".
The human mind is not qualitatively different than sufficiently complex software that imitates it perfectly. Unless, that is, we return to the idea of body/mind dualism which is 200 years out of date.
People keep being disappointed by these results because magic tricks just aren't as impressive if you know how they work.
(And, if the mind is more complex than the physical/material brain, then, unless whatever else the mind is has a non-material influence on the material brain, any additional complexity of the mind would not need to be modeled in order to imitate the outputs.)
Just no. Nothing AI researchers are building has subjective experience.
I agree with your point of course, what we have today is certainly not like a human mind
And you don't need to think that your brain is anything other than an immensely complex state machine to think that some of the core parts of what we consider to be self-awareness (emotions... or chemical responses to certain stimuli which have over billions of years helped the brain parts of biological organisms make more optimal eating and fighting and fucking decisions for the survival of the gene code) are an altogether different level of problem to train an AI on than solving maths problems or generating text. Not least because if you want AIs to write love letters to each other, you can get very pleasing results quickly with a Chinese room without the inconvenience of having to simulate all the intractable chemistry of desire.
But in this field the latter is the generic term and the former an implementation detail. For clarity: there are disciplines about it.
> Any outward sign of understanding can and will be shown by a sufficiently complex artificial system sooner or later
And? That remains a mockery of understanding, instead of the thing itself.
> People keep being disappointed by these results because magic tricks just aren't as impressive if you know how they work
No. The issue here is that illusionism ("«magic tricks»") is not magic, and it sometimes pretends to be it on bewildering stances.
Such as, if you want the engine to compose like Beethoven, make it understand and thus reconstruct the implicit references in rhythm melody and structure, or without that, you may implement further tests while keeping it a mockery machine, but you start looking like putting makeup on a puppet.