Not saying it could no be true, but that's exactly what a company like Nvidia would say. Do we have any reasonably unbiased info on what the boundaries of the current approach are and when we will reach them?
Discussions around these topics tend to get dramatized, though. In my opinion we haven't made a lick of qualitative progress in recent years in the "IQ" of AI, but we do get better at utilizing what we have, and making quantitative progress in building ever larger models.
For the task they are given, take textual tokens as input and make coherent output, the models seem 'smart enough' for me.
The problem here is all the text in the world is still one dimension of information. The emergence of human intelligence, at least I believe, isn't from one dimensional information, but from being able to get feedback and prune the bits of information that are inconsistent with reality. There is no continuous feedback loop in our current LLMs to prune/down weight bad information in that fashion that the mind works in. There is also the "the LLM universe is what humans tell it", if we feed it bad data that's incorrectly weighted, then we'll get bad output. There is currently no scientific method model internal for the AI to test its predictions on reality.
I believe all the above issues are solvable, but no idea on the time and resources necessary to accomplish them.
Firstly, I agree that "smart enough" is what we should focus on here, as I tried to emphasize with my focus on utility.
Secondly, I'm assuming your intent is to ask me when I would consider an AI to be "smart" in the context of my comment. I think I should avoid that question, and perhaps even retract my statement. There is plenty of evidence that ChatGPT is smarter than some humans. All of your 'problems', as you might realize, are equally applicable to some people.
Putting that aside, a model would need to at least be able to internalize any corrections made (by a user, and not necessarily only in the context of training) and reliably produce results consistent with such an internalization, for me to consider it smart-er (i.e., an improvement on today's AI IQ). To be smart without qualification, it would need to go further, into the realm of being able to hold opposing ideas while functioning consistent to a given user's expectations (this one will be big, because it will act as a defense against trolls and misinformation). Bonus points if it's able to improve upon its own learning algorithms and ruminate on ideas (unsupervised learning that is inspired by previous input and not stochastic in nature) without necessitating constant external dialogue.
We've gone from not very good to beats all humans at chess and go, and passing exams in medicine and law, all of which are things that I can't do myself. When AI can do all things better than a human would that qualify as a lick of progress?