I'd appreciate "No" voters explaining their reasoning.

@singer it SHOULD in principle be the same, but in practice we suck at measuring both.

IQ tests are unreliable, can be studied for, and it's not at all clear what exactly they measure and how relevant it is to your day to day tasks that you actually encounter in your daily life.

As for AI systems - I expect it would be reasonably easy to make a system that performs very well on IQ or any other standardized test but is clearly inferior to humans in practice.

@ProjectVictory I see what you mean. I'm referring to a more idealized sense of measurement and defining intelligence rather than a specific operationalized test like an IQ test (even if one could argue this is an incoherent concept). My choice of wording in the poll wasn't the best.

@singer The notion of "generality" was never about some objective measurement but merely "can AI do what we humans are specifically, weirdly optimized for".

You can see this clearly with certain basic tasks like recollection or multiplication.

Humans are not great at this. Naively you would expect that is bad for the humans-are-general hypothesis, but no one perceives that as such.

The double standard is that LLM's which aren't perfect at this are said to not be general because of their lack of this.

And certain things that were used to claim evidence for our generality like art-making we stopped caring about nearly overnight. Our notion of generality narrows after every GPT update.

I do think there are still some key distinguishing features between humans and AI with regards to what they are capable of:

• being embodied

• planning

but I don't know if those make us more general.

@Jono3h I agree with most of this, however I'd separate being embodied from intelligence. Human head kept alive in a jar is no less intelligent, despite not having hands, in my subjective opinion.

Planning and acting like an agent is a big thing at the moment.

@ProjectVictory there is skill in sports, finger dexterity and balancing

we barely consider it a kind of intelligence but our failure to make dexterous robots makes me think this is just a way humans are blind to how stupendously capable they are at it

but yeah I should have named it "dexterity"