Let me elaborate on my previous point with an example. If you look at the recent works in machine translation, you can see that the commonly used evaluation metric of BLEU is being improved upon at least every few months. What I argue is that it's stupid to look at this trend and conclude that soon we will reach human performance in machine translation. Even when comparing against the translation quality of humans (judged again by BLEU on a fixed evaluation set) and showing that we can achieve higher BLEU than humans is not enough evidence. Because you also have Google Translate (let's say it represents the state-of-the-art), and you can easily get it to make mistakes that humans would never do. I consider our prolonged interaction with Google Translate to be a narrow Turing test that we continually apply to it. A major issue in research is that, at least in supervised learning, we're evaluating on datasets that are not different enough from the training sets.
Another subtle point is that we have strong priors about the intelligence of biological beings. I don't feel the need to Turing test every single human I meet to determine whether they are intelligent, it's a safe bet at this point to just assume that they are. The output of a machine learning algorithm, on the other hand, is wildly unstable with respect to its input, and we have no solid evidence to assume that it exhibits consistent intelligent behavior and often it is easy to show that it doesn't.
I don't believe that research in AI is worthless, but I think it's not wise to keep digging in the same direction that we've been moving in for the past few years. With deep learning, while accuracies and metrics are pushed further than before, I don't think we're significantly closer to general, human-like AI. In fact, I personally consider only AlphaZero to be an unambiguous win for this era of AI research, and it's not even clear whether it should be called AI or not.