You're using limited and anecdotal task based metrics as some sort of evidence. Both of you are able to drive a car, yet we need completely different AIs for such tasks.
I still find task based measures insufficient, there are very basic machines than can perform tasks humans cannot. Should this be a measure on our or their intelligence?
I have another comment in this thread about trait based metrics being a possibly better method.
> People want to claim it's overhyped (and protect their own egos) so badly they raise the requirements...
Shallow response. Seek to elevate the conversation. There are also people who see it for what it is, a useful tool but not intelligent...
> You're using limited and anecdotal task based metrics as some sort of evidence.
And you presented no evidence at all. Not every comment I make is going to contain a full lit review.
> Both of you are able to drive a car, yet we need completely different AIs for such tasks.
This is like a bird complaining humans aren't intelligent because they can't fly. How is Gemini or o3 supposed to drive without real-time vision and a vehicle to control? How are you supposed to fly without wings?
It lacks the sensors and actuators to drive, but this is moving away from a discussion on intelligence. If you want to argue that any system lacking real-time vision isn't intelligent, you're just using a very unusual definition of intelligence that excludes blind people.
> Shallow response. Seek to elevate the conversation.
This was an ironic response pointing out the shallowness of your own unsubstantiated accusation that people just disagree with you because they're biased or deluded themselves. The next paragraph starting with "But really" was supposed to convey it wasn't serious, just a jab showing the silliness of your own jab.
I still find task based measures insufficient, there are very basic machines than can perform tasks humans cannot. Should this be a measure on our or their intelligence?
I have another comment in this thread about trait based metrics being a possibly better method.
> People want to claim it's overhyped (and protect their own egos) so badly they raise the requirements...
Shallow response. Seek to elevate the conversation. There are also people who see it for what it is, a useful tool but not intelligent...