I guess we could abstract away the specific relative difficulty and talk about stuff like “algorithms/pure mathematics research” and the ability to perform those tasks of dumb humans, median humans and the very best in the field.
I still feel like the dumb humans can’t do those tasks at all, median humans can contribute to those tasks but are (potentially much) closer to dumb humans than to peak humans in their contributions?
Yes, that seems pretty reasonable. Mathematical research does seem to require some minimal threshold of capability that lies within the human range, while quite a lot of other tasks seem to have a more linear return on intelligence from levels far below human.
This brings up a question: how far does this non-linearity extend? Would a somewhat superhuman entity with an otherwise generally human-like mind have the capacity for developing mathematical insights completely beyond the most capable humans? A positive answer would point toward the human cognitive range being somewhat narrow in the field of mathematics, just with a minimum threshold. The reverse would indicate that human capability covers much of the possible breadth of performance in that sort of task. Either possibility appears to be plausible.
Are there different tasks that have a similar minimal threshold that is beyond the most capable humans? Being human, we can’t actually answer this one since we would not even recognize it as being possible at all.
I think to the extent that non-linearity is observed, it’s the fact that humans are way better at culture than other species, which allows us to invest in language.
Upvoted, this is a valid objection.
I guess we could abstract away the specific relative difficulty and talk about stuff like “algorithms/pure mathematics research” and the ability to perform those tasks of dumb humans, median humans and the very best in the field.
I still feel like the dumb humans can’t do those tasks at all, median humans can contribute to those tasks but are (potentially much) closer to dumb humans than to peak humans in their contributions?
Yes, that seems pretty reasonable. Mathematical research does seem to require some minimal threshold of capability that lies within the human range, while quite a lot of other tasks seem to have a more linear return on intelligence from levels far below human.
This brings up a question: how far does this non-linearity extend? Would a somewhat superhuman entity with an otherwise generally human-like mind have the capacity for developing mathematical insights completely beyond the most capable humans? A positive answer would point toward the human cognitive range being somewhat narrow in the field of mathematics, just with a minimum threshold. The reverse would indicate that human capability covers much of the possible breadth of performance in that sort of task. Either possibility appears to be plausible.
Are there different tasks that have a similar minimal threshold that is beyond the most capable humans? Being human, we can’t actually answer this one since we would not even recognize it as being possible at all.
I think to the extent that non-linearity is observed, it’s the fact that humans are way better at culture than other species, which allows us to invest in language.