I understand your frustration with the results. But please bear in mind that until the wright brothers flew, the results were frustrating. What you need to lo

I understand your frustration with the results. But please bear in mind that until the wright brothers flew, the results were frustrating. What you need to look at is the raw power of internal combustion engines, and the weight they add. Versus the raw power of muscles of birds. You need to look at the raw number of neurons firing in a human brain. This is the analog device that is our benchmark. You need to look at the speed each neuron, of which there are a hundred billion, fires at: 200 hertz maximum, and more like 0.1 hertz on average. you need to look at the speed of propagation: 8 orders of magnitude slower than the interconnects in data centers. You are looking at a bird in flight, and you are looking at an internal combustion engine that outputs 1,000,000 times more power than its wings, and you are saying, "But our results are abysmal." We will, and very soon, match that output. And far, far exceed that output. For sure we will. Because it's just analog meat. And our computers are faster and wider. The poor state of algorithmic research is due to researchers having small access to the algorithms in question. We have all of the machinery for "flight" (intelligence). Personally I also think that researchers are impatient. Humans takes years to bootstrap to where they can understand the world as well as a 3-year-old. Specifically, humans take three years to understand or communicate as well as a 3-year-old. 36 months. Parity with human brains isn't the goal. The goal is achieving 144 months (12 years) of brain development closely assisted and supervised by parents and teachers, especially within the first few years, within 9 hours of unsupervised learning. But it will be done. You have the facts there in black and white.