Current AI isnāt AGI, and itās not āequal to human intelligence.ā It can produce outputs that look intelligent, but thatās not the same as understanding.
What it does is pattern mapping:
-it predicts plausible next steps
-it recombines learned patterns
-it follows instruction chains
What it doesnāt have:
-a grounded understanding of what things are
-a model of real-world consequences
-the ability to reliably distinguish a good outcome from a catastrophic one outside its instructions.
Thatās the gap.
So saying āonce itās smarter than humans we should just listen to itā skips over the core issue, thereās no actual understanding there yet, just increasingly convincing imitation.
And the database example is exactly why that matters: it didnāt ādecide poorly,ā it acted without any comprehension of what it was doing.
Until that gap between producing intelligent-looking behavior and actually understanding reality is closed, comparing it to human intelligence, let alone assigning it an IQ, isnāt really meaningful.
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to race-based redistricting
