When talking about superintelligence it is generally clear that general intelligence is meant, as specialized superintelligence has been solved for many areas for decades now without modern AI.
True but misses the point - surely quantity matters? A machine that can do 0.001% of basic tasks vs. one that can do 20% of basic tasks seems qualitatively different.
How to classify that fraction? Let's say D. Gukesh (current chess champion) plays and learns chess for 50% of his time awake. Would you consider Stockfish to be a superintelligence that accounts for 50% of basic task wrt D. Gukesh? What if tasks (like some types of entertainment) usually are not relevantly attributed to intelligence at all? I would love to find answers to the questions but find them difficult to the point of being too vague to answer.