I am also very confused. The space of problems has a really surprising structure, permitting algorithms that are incredibly adept at some forms of problem-solving, yet utterly inept at others.

We're only familiar with human minds, in which there's a tight coupling between the performances on some problems (e. g., between the performance on chess or sufficiently well-posed math/programming problems, and the general ability to navigate the world). Now we're generating other minds/proto-minds, and we're discovering that this coupling isn't fundamental.

(This is an argument for longer timelines, by the way. Current AIs feel on the very cusp of being AGI, but there in fact might be some vast gulf between their algorithms and human-brain algorithms that we just don't know how to talk about.)

No current AI system could generate a research paper that would receive anything but the lowest possible score from each reviewer

I don't think that's strictly true, the peer-review system often approves utter nonsense. But yes, I don't think any AI system can generate an actually worthwhile research paper.