That's not accurate at all for me. I'm not impressed with the output when rating it against humans who are good at said task. It's obviously not as good as those who are good in that relevant field.

But it's certainly far better than humans who are not skilled at those tasks, and that is what I find to be very impressive. I just didn't realise that these models could be this good, and they're not even as good as they will be.

I guess if you were expecting something that's going to be as good as those who are skilled in a particular field, you'll be unimpressed -- but I wasn't even expecting mediocrity.