>are trained on far more data

I feel like we're underestimating how much data we as humans are exposed to. There's a reason AI struggles to generate an image of a full glass of wine. It has no concept of what wine is. It probably knows way more theory about it than any human, but it's missing the physical.

In order to train AIs the way we train ourselves, we'll need to give it more senses, and I'm no data scientist but that's presumably an inordinate amount of data. Training AI to feel, smell, see in 3D, etc is probably going to cost exponentially more than what the AI companies make now or ever will. But that is the only way to make AI understand rather than know.

We often like to state how much more capacity for knowledge AI has than the average human, but in reality we are just underestimating ourselves as humans.

I think this conversation is dancing around the relationship of memory and knowledge. Simply storing information is different than knowing it. One of you is thinking book learning while the other is thinking street smarts.