I once hypothetically saved a few dozen colleagues from dying in a fire. All of these people had at least a degree and many were educated to PhD.
The fire alarm sounded and at the bottom of a stairwell the exit door would not release until someone operated the emergency release break-glass panel. But none of these educated people grasped that. Worse still, none of them thought to use a nearby heavy steel trolley as a battering ram. One guy is trying to phone for help, which was pointless as the alarm sound makes conversation impossible.
I'm one of the last down the stairs. I look at the people, the closed door, the steel trolley, and the emergency door release panel. Realising I'm not going to have the fun of trashing the doors, I operate the release panel and we all leave.
> none of them thought to use a nearby heavy steel trolley as a battering ram
It has been my experience that most people will freeze up more or less in an emergency. Some people will become completely catatonic, while others "just" lose 40 IQ points and start focusing on unimportant stuff ("I should clean my room" when there's a fire).
Some rare individuals are naturally calm in an emergency. I'm not one of those, but through unfortunate experiences I now recognize when it happens to me and I can force myself to prioritize and think logically.
People who are calm and composed in chaos had that as a natural state growing up, hence when shit hits the fan these folks feel at ease and ready to do what's needed.
There's a significant portion of all human beings who ever lived who wouldn't partake in a hypothetical. They would just respond "I don't see that door" and go away thinking your question makes no sense.
And that’s fine? A 130+ IQ population would be mindnumbingly boring tbh. We, as a society, need all sorts of humans - not everyone can work at FAANG. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that high IQ people aren’t significantly better at societal decision making.
The elitist mindset of expressing disgust at “low IQ” people is wrong. Please do link some sources proving the necessity of only “high IQ” populace, and how that’s sustainable as a society.
It is not. You are playing a moralizer, and just refuse an argument that puts people and animals on the same spectrum as a valid answer to your question. I call this hypocrisy.
I'd argue that to be considered a developed country, you need to be able to support your population. Being able to provide social safety nets stopping your citizens from falling into poverty is a sign of being developed. There's a reason that the HDI (and IHDI) exists separately from GDP.
I remember a possibly apocryphal quote from a park ranger saying that there was a significant overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this on some national park official instagram. The idea being they can’t build actually bear proof garbage containers because there will be people that can’t or won’t figure out how to use them. Experience dealing with raccoons confirms this… it’s difficult to contain dog food for a farm dog outside that doesn’t get broken into.
The point of using a computer/AI is enable predictable and/or factual output. It’s not really a useful gotcha to say that “most humans would get this wrong”…
This used to be true with deterministic algorithms but not anymore. LLMs give you a "good enough" approximate answer which will replace humans in many scenarios previously inaccessible to computers.
Yes, but the GP rightly pointed out that comparing AI capabilities to dumb humans is not very useful. After all, you wouldn't hire random people from the street to do your accounting either. As another example, I doubt that a lawyer's office would want to hire someone who cannot correctly answer the glass door puzzle, even if that person's main task was only summarizing texts.
To be fair, at the current pace of development I'd be surprised if the next iterations of GPT won't outperform most qualified humans, too.
The way I see it is there's now an IQ cutoff below which GPT will serve you better than a human for any "white-collar" task, and that cutoff point is rising with every new model.
There is no "point" it's just a technology. My point was that the OP question was actually very difficult to the point many people could not handle it. So the fact an AI can not is not entirely surprising.
