This sounds like the AI effect at work. Google’s got an AI that’s autonomously generating novel publishable scientific results and now that’s dismissed as them being just “good at math.”

I can see why it might seem that way from the small reply i gave, but contextually it was in response to you referencing a maths specific problem.

I also went out of my way to specifically raise the same points as in that link, wrt to “intelligence” measurements and definitions.

I wasn’t advocating for one way or the other, just pointing out that (afaik) we don’t currently have a good way of defining or measuring either kind of intelligence, let alone a way to compare them [*].

So timelines on when one will surpass the other by any objective measurements are moot.

[*] Comparisons on isolated tasks is possible and useful in some contexts,but not useful in a general measurement sense without an actual idea of what we should be measuring.

As in, you can measure which vehicle is heavier, but in a context of “Which of these is more red” , weight means nothing.

The root article that this thread is about isn’t about AGI at all, though. It’s about an AI that’s doing computer chip design.

You yourself quoted a response with the phrase “human intelligence” in an ML based context.

I was clearly replying to your comment and not the article itself.

Measures of intelligence are all iffy at best, but I’m pretty sure “being better at raw math” isn’t a good one in isolation, especially seeing as that has been the case for a very long time.

CPU’s and GPU’s are basically just doing really fast math repeatedly.

That aside i’d, challenge you to find a universally accepted definition of “human intelligence” that works as a benchmark we can also use to measure machine intelligence.

afaik, we’re still murky on whether or not we are just really efficient specialised computers working with electric meat instead of electric stone.

The term normally used when talking about MI that is similar enough to human intelligence is AGI and even then, there’s not consensus on what that actually means.

Easy answer is , they don’t

Though that’s just the one admitting to it.

A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there’s likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it’d be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.

“anonymous” downvotes aren’t a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.

and I’m saying it’s not a common occurrence, intentional or not.

Guns aren’t common enough in the UK for “they’ve got a gun” to be a go-to for the police.

“They’ve got a knife” or “They’ve got a sign the ruling class don’t want people to see” are more likely.

As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it’s by no means the norm.

Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.

I was just saying it’s not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).

The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.

In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.

Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.