It all comes down to the definition of "intelligence." Computers can do things easily that humans may find difficult or even impossible. And yet, were you to show a computer a painting, it wouldn't be able to analyze it the way an art critic could. Computers can crunch numbers exceptionally well, but they have no critical capacity.
But all of this is a big "NOT YET". All it takes is the right processing power and programming.
And what we want from a computer. Computers are (usually) supposed to deliver deterministic results. You want it to function according to your needs. And art critic is quite the opposite of that. Show one image to two critics and you get three different opinions. On a Monday. On a Tuesday, you get an additional set of opinions.
Right now, you can write programs to objectively analyze an image. The subjective interpretation is usually not what you want a computer to do.
Computers don't always have to behave deterministically. (Some are designed not to, for certain applications.)
Computers can do quantitative analysis quite well. Even when they play at qualitative analysis, in the end it's just a bunch of rules surrounding a quantitative analysis.
For most purposes, though, you're right: most problems we can envision will eventually be solvable by a computer that is powerful enough and programmed properly. The latter depends on having good enough programmers, of course. The most powerful computer in the world won't help you solve any problems if it doesn't have the right programmers.