What makes you say that? There's a vocal faction I've heard who essentially say that statistics can never be intelligent. I don't understand the argument. I think it's grounded on feeling like there should be something somewhere in the complicated system that you can point at and say it understands, but just like the old chinese room thought experiment I think the question of what it means to understand isn't the important one. Practically it's hard to deny that a system of approximation run statistically can do more or less the same things we can, because that appears to be what we are.

I think there's the much more defensible position that current techniques can't scale up to general artificial intelligence. That's pretty clear because we've already had to change details of model architecture a lot to get the models to where they are now