I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the way you throw around the term "CPU speeds," (how do you even measure that?) you sound to me like a programmer for whom computation is a magical process composed of functions, arguments, processes and files.
Moore's Law is only indirectly related to CPU speed. Instead, it predicts the MOST ECONOMICALLY PROFITABLE minimum feature size of a semiconductor manufacturing process.
To a lot of people, those two things are one and the same, but in reality, computing power tends to grow because of innovations in processor architecture. In other words, material and device engineers will wring lots of improvements out of a given process, giving the architecture guys more transistors to implement bigger caches, longer pipelines, branch prediction, and the like.
So while "Moore's Law" continues apace, "CPU speeds" (however you measure those) have stalled a bit. This is because the current slate of architectural improvements has been exhausted, and there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding how to implement the Next Big Thing (core-level parallelism). This shouldn't be terribly worrisome to us, as it's happened before.
From the 1970s to the early 1990s, CPU manufacturers focused on "bit-level" parallelism, basically throwing in bigger registers and more instructions to burn through growing hardware budgets. When it became obvious that this approach wasn't improving performance any more, we got tghe RISC processors that enabled pipelining, upclocking, and caching.
If you didn't already know all of this -- and a lot more background besides -- your opinions about "programming an AI" are worse than useless. You're contributing zero information, and adding a little more noise (in the form of unsubstantiated certainty) to a field that's already debated too hotly.