To avoid those, perhaps you could say what you actually mean. 100 on IQ tests, pass the Turing test—or whatever.
IQ tests seem to be tests of how well humans can do things that you would already expect a computer to be better at! The difficult part seems to be parsing the question and translating it from natural language into a format the computer can tackle. No mean feat but not one requiring general intelligence! I’m not entirely sure it would be a more difficult task than having an everyday conversation at the level of a 70 IQ human. (This isn’t to say that ‘pass for human’ is at all equivalent to ‘human level’ either.)
“About as good as an average intelligence but well trained human is at doing scientific research” seems to be approximately what ‘human level’ is getting at.
You get a lot of “human level—WTF” comments.
To avoid those, perhaps you could say what you actually mean:
More than “100” on IQ tests, pass the Turing test—or whatever.
IQ tests seem to be tests of how well humans can do things that you would already expect a computer to be better at! The difficult part seems to be parsing the question and translating it from natural language into a format the computer can tackle. No mean feat but not one requiring general intelligence! I’m not entirely sure it would be a more difficult task than having an everyday conversation at the level of a 70 IQ human. (This isn’t to say that ‘pass for human’ is at all equivalent to ‘human level’ either.)
“About as good as an average intelligence but well trained human is at doing scientific research” seems to be approximately what ‘human level’ is getting at.
Maybe. Machines can outperform humans in some parts of IQ tests.
...but they don’t get good scores overall yet.
An IQ 100 machine would be quite something. An IQ 150 machine would be even more interesting.