We don't have very good general intelligence.
What we have is a fairly loose mix of categorisers and recognisers, biochemical motivators and goal systems, some abstraction, and a lot of externally persistent cultural and social programming. (The extent and importance of which is wildly underestimated.)
The result is that virtually all humans can handle emotional recognition and display with speech and body language including facial manipulation/recognition. But this doesn't get you very far, except as a baseline for mutual recognition.
After that you get two narrowing pyramids of talent and trained ability. One starts with basic physical manipulation of concrete objects and peaks in the extreme abstraction of physics and math research. The other starts from social and emotional game playing, with a side order of resource control and acquisition. And peaks in the extreme game playing of political and economic systems.
So what's called AI is a very partial and limited attempt to start climbing one of those peaks. The other is being explored in covert collective form on social media. And it's far more dangerous than a hypothetical paperclip monster, because it can affect what we think, feel, and believe, not just what we can do.
The point is that it's a default assumption that the point of AI is to create something that is somehow recognisable as a human individual, no matter how remotely.
But it's far more likely to be a kind of collective presence which doesn't just lack a face, it won't be perceived as a presence or influence at all.