A fair chunk of AI work boils down to “make something that acts like a human.” On the other end of the spectrum is stuff that is more specialized, like very targeted classifiers; there is no reason to expect those would benefit from this.
We’re just normalizing to our innate sensibilities. We have no idea if we’re making intelligence or what that even means as us humans must work within the constraints we evolved into. We have no idea if we generalized consciousness as it could exist across space time.
You and I will never exist outside our universe and observe what makes it tick. We’re hanging out on Earth making mannequins talk, hallucinating we’re gods because of it. Humans are artificial intelligence given their lack of direct observation of so much of the universe.
Conway came up with his game of life after the universe. Sorry, AI researchers, life, consciousness and visualization were already created by reality. We’re just working on an easy to use Dewey Decimal system to catalog it.
personally i absolutely do think that for generating convincingly human-like intelligence you also need some human constraints, otherwise you will get some uncanny valley.
another example would be alpha-zeros play style. AIs don't play like humans, they maximize their chance of winning in the long term without going for good looking opportunities that hurt their chances in the long run (like human players do).
I guess I just find the goal of imitating human intelligence including all its mistakes to be a silly goal. The only time you want that instead of an actual human is if you're trying to deceive people into thinking your AI is a human. Otherwise, you just want the correct answer (or, if you're afraid, you want a strictly sub-human intelligence).