That's true, but my general gripe is the static nature of the whole system. Even if humans' neuroplasticity reduces with age, it never goes to zero. I started to learn English at a very early age, yet my ability to communicate with it soared around 20, because I started to use it more and more.

Same with instruments. I started to play instruments at an early age, but started to play guitar around that age. Well, I'm not a virtuoso, but can play and more importantly can improve.

These AI systems we built are static things. We generally try to make them more intelligent by augmenting the context they can see, but the model doesn't evolve in every turn, for example.

Intelligence is a multi-faceted and multi-input construct, that's true, and GPT-6 may do amazing things w.r.t. other models, I didn't try it yet. OTOH, my main call is to remember that these are still static algorithms fed with enormous amount of data. They are more rooted on statistics rather than fixed inputs. In short, they are still fitting to the frame of "advanced search".

In general, I'm not against the tech, but the hype. I have other gripes about how AI is being built, but that's not subject of this comment.