We're making progress in scientific fields that are still in the growth stage of their evolution. There is little reason not to believe that these fields will not soon be any more moribund than say airplane technology has been for the last 40 years.
We still don't have the android maids that are past due, either. We've got a robot that does the vacuuming, and recently it was counted a major success to have a robot that could merely fold clothes (and only that). I don't know about you, but I think that free beamed energy is way more beneficial than a clothes-folding robot.
Or even if you count the awesome toys that Boston Dynamics puts out; they're still just that, toys. Incredible toys, but nowhere near taking over from humans.
We're nowhere near the AI that futurists of the past thought we'd have by now. Same goes for cancer cures (CRISPR).
This misses a few points. Key among them that projections of future technological development from 50 - 100 years ago have proved woefully inaccurate.
Drawing targets around what you shot at regardless of where you're aiming has a name: Texas Sharpshooting.
It's an exceptionally poor rebuttal or response to the observation that forecasts have failed. Moreso if in doing so the reasons for the deviation isn't specifically analysed.