You just picked an arbitrary gap though. And it seems like a small gap that's crossable.
For example just 2 weeks ago there were two other gaps that you could've used in your example. You could've said 3D interpretation of images wasn't possible and the creation of animated movies wasn't possible and you could've said these few things suggest that there's a gap in what the human brain is doing and what the AI is doing and just throwing more data at the problem doesn't fix it.
Those two examples would be irrelevant today as both of those gaps have Effectively been crossed.
See what I'm saying here. There's two ways of looking at it even from your perspective... Either that gap is so large that the human brain is completely different. Or the gap is small, trivial and will be crossed very very soon.
I'm saying something different, that the most impressive examples of AI breakthroughs are doing things that humans find hard / are bad at. Meanwhile there are many things that people find easy / do without thinking / can be done by dogs or very young children that AI struggles with.
It suggests to me that what most current approaches are doing is something fairly different from what human / animal intelligence is doing in important ways. That means we will likely continue to see AI do increasingly amazing things while at the same time struggling to perform a lot of tasks that are quite basic for humans.
It is the fact that AI is proving to be a better artist than most humans while not being able to do many things that are simple for a 4 year old that suggests strongly to me that some of the fundamental mechanisms are fairly different still, or current AI approaches are missing some key insights.
I could be wrong. I'd bet money that I'm right if there was an easy way to do it though.
you will find that GPT-3 writing is consistently on all fronts better than what a 4 year old can write. Even the strange inconsistencies and lack of awareness in the writing is better than what a 4 year old can do.
For example just 2 weeks ago there were two other gaps that you could've used in your example. You could've said 3D interpretation of images wasn't possible and the creation of animated movies wasn't possible and you could've said these few things suggest that there's a gap in what the human brain is doing and what the AI is doing and just throwing more data at the problem doesn't fix it.
Those two examples would be irrelevant today as both of those gaps have Effectively been crossed.
See what I'm saying here. There's two ways of looking at it even from your perspective... Either that gap is so large that the human brain is completely different. Or the gap is small, trivial and will be crossed very very soon.