better capabilities than average adult human in almost all respects in late 2024
I see people say things like this, but I don’t understand it at all. The average adult human can do all sorts of things that current AIs are hopeless at, such as planning a weekend getaway. Have you, literally you personally today, automated 90% of the things you do at your computer? If current AI has better capabilities than the average adult human, shouldn’t it be able to do most of what you do? (Setting aside anything where you have special expertise, but we all spend big chunks of our day doing things where we don’t have special expertise – replying to routine emails, for instance.)
My description “better capabilities than average adult human in almost all respects”, differs from “would be capable of running most people’s lives better than they could”. You appear to be taking these as synonymous.
The economically useful question is more along the lines of “what fraction of time taken on tasks could a business expect to be able to delegate to these agents for free vs a median human that they have to employ at socially acceptable wages” (taking into account supervision needs and other overheads in each case).
My guess is currently “more than half, probably not yet 80%”. There are still plenty of tasks that a supervised 120 IQ human can do that current models can’t. I do not think there will remain many tasks that a 100 IQ human can do with supervision that a current AI model cannot with the same degree of supervision, after adjusting processes to suit the differing strengths and weakness of each.
Your test does not measure what you think it does. There are people smarter than me who I could not and would not trust to make decisions about me (or my computer) in my life. So no. (Also note, I am very much not of average capability, and likewise for most participants on LessWrong)
I am certain that you also would not take a random person in the world of median capability and get them to do 90% of the things you do with your computer for you, even for free. Not without a lot of screening and extensive training and probably not even then.
However, it would not take much better reliability for other people to create economically valuable niches for AIs with such capability. It would take quite a long time, but even with zero increases in capability I think AI would be eventually be a major economic factor replacing human labour. Not quite transformative, but close.
I see people say things like this, but I don’t understand it at all. The average adult human can do all sorts of things that current AIs are hopeless at, such as planning a weekend getaway. Have you, literally you personally today, automated 90% of the things you do at your computer? If current AI has better capabilities than the average adult human, shouldn’t it be able to do most of what you do? (Setting aside anything where you have special expertise, but we all spend big chunks of our day doing things where we don’t have special expertise – replying to routine emails, for instance.)
FWIW, I touched on this in a recent blog post: https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/speed-and-distance.
My description “better capabilities than average adult human in almost all respects”, differs from “would be capable of running most people’s lives better than they could”. You appear to be taking these as synonymous.
The economically useful question is more along the lines of “what fraction of time taken on tasks could a business expect to be able to delegate to these agents for free vs a median human that they have to employ at socially acceptable wages” (taking into account supervision needs and other overheads in each case).
My guess is currently “more than half, probably not yet 80%”. There are still plenty of tasks that a supervised 120 IQ human can do that current models can’t. I do not think there will remain many tasks that a 100 IQ human can do with supervision that a current AI model cannot with the same degree of supervision, after adjusting processes to suit the differing strengths and weakness of each.
Your test does not measure what you think it does. There are people smarter than me who I could not and would not trust to make decisions about me (or my computer) in my life. So no. (Also note, I am very much not of average capability, and likewise for most participants on LessWrong)
I am certain that you also would not take a random person in the world of median capability and get them to do 90% of the things you do with your computer for you, even for free. Not without a lot of screening and extensive training and probably not even then.
However, it would not take much better reliability for other people to create economically valuable niches for AIs with such capability. It would take quite a long time, but even with zero increases in capability I think AI would be eventually be a major economic factor replacing human labour. Not quite transformative, but close.