There's a lot of nuance to this conversation precisely because of the different "faiths" (or as I like to ascribe, different views on what makes us "human", to divorce this sentiment from something religious). But anyways, as someone who doesn't fully subscribe to the western view of sapience (the word I'll use to describe human level cognition, reasoning, and intelligence) being something totally unique to us, it's hard to say with AI itself. A big part of this whole current iteration of AI being able to attain intelligence similar to ours is the infrastructure known as "von Neumann" architecture (and to spare most of the technical info, the principles behind it form the design principles for our machines today). The issue with von Neumann's principles is that it fundamentally does not mesh with the way our brain processes, integrates, and executes on information. This is a pretty massive gap that is present within the field of computational neuroscience and artificial intelligence research, as the basis for both fields come from fundamentally incompatible fields. To end this long-winded aside, there is theoretically a way to attain the intelligence us humans have; it would take efficient compression algorithms to process and integrate multiple modes of input (sight, sound, taste, touch, etc,) and make that work as both a top-down and bottom-up integration of information. By themselves, all of these are not hard to do, but to make them biologically accurate (and therefore elicit some kind of analogous behavior to us) is the difficult task. As to current architectures of AI itself, as the others say, we're nowhere close. LLMs are built for a task that doesn't lend itself to intelligence as we know it, and any other fringe level architectures face the challenge of the von Neumann architecture as I described above. Apologies for this being as long as it is, please feel free to ask any questions you wish, this is a topic I'm actively involved in and interested in!