6 ms·

A human with an average IQ then. Please try to go with the spirit of the question rather than trying to find some escape from it.

mdp2021 8d ago
Well, explain said "spirit of the question" then, because "human with an average IQ" gets the same reply as above (49606153). Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
- dinfinity 8d ago
  It's a very simple experiment: Create a set of intelligence-only tasks with answers that can be easily graded for correctness, then instruct one or more humans with an IQ of about 100 to do the tasks, then compare the performance to that of frontier AI on the same tasks. We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
  - mdp2021 7d ago
    > Ignoring this reality is part of other concerns. So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
    - dinfinity 6d ago
      I did not mean that, but I'll take it as agreement that we've already achieved AGI if that is defined as being on average more intelligent than average humans.
      - mdp2021 6d ago
        If you wanted to be sure and date that: it happened around the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 - check Maxim Lott's trackingai.org . But, again (and again), that which you propose cannot be a productive definition of AGI. In engineering we strive to understand "Fast", then to implement it, and then obtain "faster than a cheetah" - not "faster than a roadkill", which is really not a goal. > more intelligent than average humans Adequate language and ideas, please: one probably does not have actual intelligence, the other probably does not use it.

mdp2021 8d ago

Well, explain said "spirit of the question" then, because "human with an average IQ" gets the same reply as above (49606153). Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.

dinfinity 8d ago
It's a very simple experiment: Create a set of intelligence-only tasks with answers that can be easily graded for correctness, then instruct one or more humans with an IQ of about 100 to do the tasks, then compare the performance to that of frontier AI on the same tasks. We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
- mdp2021 7d ago
  > Ignoring this reality is part of other concerns. So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
  - dinfinity 6d ago
    I did not mean that, but I'll take it as agreement that we've already achieved AGI if that is defined as being on average more intelligent than average humans.
    - mdp2021 6d ago
      If you wanted to be sure and date that: it happened around the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 - check Maxim Lott's trackingai.org . But, again (and again), that which you propose cannot be a productive definition of AGI. In engineering we strive to understand "Fast", then to implement it, and then obtain "faster than a cheetah" - not "faster than a roadkill", which is really not a goal. > more intelligent than average humans Adequate language and ideas, please: one probably does not have actual intelligence, the other probably does not use it.