Not really. The idea behind hard AI is that you can have one algorithm that can solve general problems, not lots of different algorithms to solve specific problems.
Take IBM's research as an example. Deep Blue is very good at solving chess problems, Watson is very good at solving textual analysis problems, but taken together they don't solve any problems that aren't chess or textual analysis.
The hard AI problem is a direct parallel of the psychological debate over whether a general intelligence capability (the 'G factor') exists in humans, and whether this can be measured (IQ).
Honest question here - does anyone actually still believe a single algorithm can solve general problems? Certainly the human mind doesn't work that way - we are fairly compartmentalized with a lot of communication between compartments.
AIXI is a single algorithm that can solve every problem, given enough time, which is enough to prove that they do exist, however uselessly long it would take AIXI to solve any actual problem.
The book "On Intelligence" does a decent job explaining for non-neuoroscientists a theory where all parts of the brain (imaging, hearing, speach, cognition, etc) use the same pattern matching algorithm.
Take IBM's research as an example. Deep Blue is very good at solving chess problems, Watson is very good at solving textual analysis problems, but taken together they don't solve any problems that aren't chess or textual analysis.
The hard AI problem is a direct parallel of the psychological debate over whether a general intelligence capability (the 'G factor') exists in humans, and whether this can be measured (IQ).