I see myself more as the observer here. I see that there's plenty of publications of people claiming to exceed the "state of the art", as well as plenty of people claiming to have found the holy grail. But if you use their resulting AIs with real-world data, they usually fail.
For example, people were willing to declare optical flow "solved" already 5 years ago. Yet, autonomous drones still crash into wires, glass, trees, snow, water, etc., because their optical flow algorithms cannot handle these aspects of reality (which were not present in the AI training data).
We could be just around the corner, but the fact that people are taking for granted that there's no intelligence in AI isn't promising.
If you respond defensively about how difficult it is to give people what they want, well, that's the whole point.