I think most people are still aware of the problem. I've seen a few people go off the rails, but most people have been well aware that "GPT-3 is having a conversation with me!" isn't itself particularly interesting.
On the other hand, we should acknowledge that humans are also structurally wrong for most of the domains we work in. A general-purpose neural network isn't a great tool to diagnose cancer, certainly - but it doesn't have to be great to exceed some radiologist's general-purpose light detectors. I think GPT-3 starts to edge into the territory of demonstrating Dreyfus was substantially wrong, and recognizably computer-like architectures are fully capable of doing abstract reasoning.
(That's not to knock on Dreyfus! Other voices in his era were optimistic to an absurd degree, and "come on guys our computers aren't that smart" was a very necessary response.)
On the other hand, we should acknowledge that humans are also structurally wrong for most of the domains we work in. A general-purpose neural network isn't a great tool to diagnose cancer, certainly - but it doesn't have to be great to exceed some radiologist's general-purpose light detectors. I think GPT-3 starts to edge into the territory of demonstrating Dreyfus was substantially wrong, and recognizably computer-like architectures are fully capable of doing abstract reasoning.
(That's not to knock on Dreyfus! Other voices in his era were optimistic to an absurd degree, and "come on guys our computers aren't that smart" was a very necessary response.)