Good thing our current "AI" is a fancy guessing algorithm, and not an alien with 300 IQ. This renders the argument moot.
In the next few decades, it’s entirely possible that AI with an IQ of 300 will arrive. Really, that might actually happen.
If you want to argue against that point, feel free. But to ignore that is to be unnecessarily dismissive.
There are two separate conversations, one about capabilities and one about what happens assuming a certain capability threshold is met. They are p(A) and p(B|A).
I myself don't fully buy the idea that you can just naively extrapolate, but mixing the two isn't good thinking.
That's literally what our brains are so I'm not sure what argument you are actually trying to make..
Edit: no ok i get u. ensemble learning is a thing ofc. maybe me n other poster reasoned too much from AI == model..but ofc you combine em these days. which is more humanlike guesser levels. (not nearly enough models now ofc)
Without doubt, LLMs know more than any human, and can act faster. They will soon be smarter than any human. Why does it have to be the same as a human brain? That is irrelevant.
The training process forces this outcome. By necessity, LLMs converge onto something of a similar shape to a human mind. LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" as humans do, and even their failures are amusingly humanlike.
Do you think there's at least a 1% chance that AI will get this smart in the next 30 years? If so, surely applying this allegory helps you think about the possible consequences.