The fact that one-shot learning is still hard does not falsify what I said. Computers are now better than humans at many tasks that were once thought to be the domain of general intelligence. How they were trained is not particularly significant.
It depends on what you mean by a task. Machines are not universally good at object detection because they fail in cases where there is too little data. We can't magically wish for non existent data (yet humans would do quite well on those data-scare tasks).
Ya, i'm happy to accept that humans are still better at generalizing from scant data. But that is something that's being actively worked on, and progress is being made.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6266/1332.short
Machine translation is a joke.
Put any comment on this page through Google translate to another language and back to English and see what you get.
I did a small part of yours. Hardly human-level for just a small simple sentence.
> But even if you do not make this assumption, identifying the object involves spitting the distance from the performance of the human level.