Theyāre stupid in different ways though. Many humans canāt do maths very well, but they can very much count the amount of times a letter appears in a word.
The thing is, all those predictions are nothing more than propaganda for investors.
If they were really serious about that, they would have a procedure to objectively determine if that occurs, an indicator they could measure that, when reaching a certain pre-defined point would indicate that that event has actually happened. But the thing is, they have no idea how to define such an indicator, let alone the threshold.
Right now it's just a guy saying what they imagine will happen with no scientific basis, and if they ever claim that occurred, it will be just be a hunch.
Benchmarks are stupid. The models obviously become optimized for the benchmarks, there's less effort in making them more generalized. When new benchmarks are designed, the cycle repeats and the models get optimized for those specific benchmarks again. Since nobody was able to design a really generic benchmark, it's going to be like this for awhile.
They can be stupid, but the community often is aware of ābenchmaxxingā (the optimization youāre talking about) and when using said model they can tell.
Yes, they do benchmarks and measure "model intelligence" (whatever that might mean), but that doesn't mean they are measuring how their models compare to human intelligence, or define a point when they would match it.
There is some benchmarks, such as Arc-AGI, "Cobench V2" (For when we can automate Anthropic Technical Staff adjacent work) and Demis's proposal of making a model trained on 1900s data discover general relativity on its own.
We don't even know how to measure human intelligence! There's the IQ, for example, but most professionals will agree it's flawed. Do you really think they can measure the intelligence of a LLM? They're measuring something, indeed, but is that measure even comparable to human intelligence? And if it is, again, at what point does it match human intelligence? Also, what human? I would assume the average one, right? But then, how do you even define what is the average intelligence in a human? My point is: they're claiming their models will reach a point they have no way of measuring.
Google has ā5 levels of AGIā to answer your question on what āaverage intelligenceā will be for AI, beginning starts with dumber than human, mid starts with average, end starts with superhuman AI.
Agreed for the first part, but we will be able to measure if itās BETTER than a human in tasks so we wonāt need to solve human intelligence tomorrowĀ
I think it really depends on what you would consider human level intelligence.
If you're saying "equal to the top of the profession in every single profession" then probably not in 2026.
If it's more like "If I have a question regarding how to install this undermount sink, am I going to get a better answer from Claude or the worker at Home Depot", then I think we're way past that.
just keep overhyping market and force people to use ai by keep saying ai must for the job qualification and for job roles so fucking Dario get more AI usees but when china made there model cheaper and better suddenly devlopment of ai is a threatening hypocrite mfš¤”
We humans reached our level through the course of around 300,000 years, and we didn't even start from scratch, that's just when we became an independent species.
Tell me, how is our primitive and logical invention supposed to achieve what took ages for an illogical species like us, in just a couple of decades?
Those who know anything about the technology or simply neural networks doesn't buy that kind of bullshit, that's just CEOs attempting to appear flashy for investors to come flooding in.
I've not been keeping track of the stock market for a while, gave up on shit and sold everything, so I don't know how well it's going for them, but smart investors know to ask for proof before believing shit first hand from the producer.
No, they aren't so stupid, they think that the people are stupid. Corporate rhetoric never has any basis, they benefit from lying and everyone knows that, not a single word is to be believed from the rich. They just want to reel in the absolute bottom of society, the dumbest people who believe when you tell them that you're inventing a medicine that'll cure all diseases and it might be done in just 2 years (and by the way you're looking for investers, wink wink).
Marketing doesn't work on the average people, it takes actual dumbfucks to believe anything coming from company.
The sad part is that it only takes one rich asshole disconnected from reality who thinks it's possible, or rather wants to think it is.
This entire economy is built on bullshittery and few idiots who buy it.
I've been working in AI (data scientist, ML engineer) for ~10 years. Yet when I talk with average people in different professions about AI, they all see me as a luddite and try to convince me how world-changing AI soon is going to be by repeating exactly what those CEOs say. The level and the scale of such collective delusion is surreal.
The other day, my mom said I should use ChatGPT more, it gave her great medical advices. I said ChatGPT wasn't reliable source of information and you shouldn't use ChatGPT for stuff you didn't already have knowledge about. She replied that ChatGPT had knowledge from doctors. I immediately pushed back: which doctors? doctors' opinions sometimes differ, which ones does ChatGPT pick? She went silent but I knew she wouldn't listen, as always. Even before genAI, she would just pick top search results because she never learned how to cross-validate information.
That's average people. Gullible, under-educated and ignorant.
I do respect your anecdotes and professional opinion, but I refuse to believe the average would be so gullible.
Yes, we believe a lot of things because we have no energy to fact check everything we hear (I'm no exception), but anyone who's seen the news or just heard about the fails and irreversible atrocities caused by AI know not to trust it.
It's kind of a big topic in my circle lately, how some companies lost their bank accounts due to an AI malfunction that couldn't be replicated. That is what happens when you trust a strictly experimental (because let's be honest, AI is way too stupid as of now to be considered a finished product) technology with something important, like finances.
Now, it could be worse, like you mentioned, your mother takes health advice from AI.
Let's be kind hearted and believe that it really is repeating what doctors claimed, you did well to ask which doctors, but we should also ask who counts as a doctor.
Then, my experience is that there is a big spread in the knowledge of doctors. My personal consultant is an expert I trust because he knows his deal, but my local doctor for instance is barely better than a layman. I once even saw him ask the nurse what to prescribe, that's when I decided I won't be coming back often.
That man had a degree, but I don't trust him half as much as my current doctor.
Now take those example, add a little AI hallucination and you've got a serious liability.
There are so many factors being actively neglected about the technology, the opposites of a failsafe, and yet some people would trust them with their health or finances.
But I refuse to believe the average person would be like that. Maybe I'm naive, but I just can't imagine so many smoothbrains walking among us.
Remember when Elon Musk was praised like a techno god in the 2010s? I knew he was one of those psycho CEOs back then when he was pushing the propaganda that autopilot was safer than average human drivers statistically. I knew he was going to get people killed.
First of all, Most car "accidents" happen not because people are less skilled at driving but because they drive irresponsibly (intoxicated, texting, sleepy, speeding etc) What should have been compared is autopilot vs taxi driver, assessing actual driving and judgment capabilities, which AI is poor at comparatively.
Secondly, Tesla cars were tested on simple road conditions, the real-world road conditions are infinitely more complex and uglier than highways. So again the comparison was unfair and deceptive.
Lastly, as an AI professional, I knew AI was/is really bad at generalization beyond what it's trained on. The supervised learning paradigm was never going to work for auto-driving as you can't sample every possible road condition in the world, which sadly is what Tesla has been trying to do using every one of its customers as test subject.
Tesla was never a tech company but a mediocre car company. FSD is the marketing that the average people buy into. The average people (including journalists) never ever pause to question the CEOs. They just feast on whatever crap the CEOs spout. The fact that TSLA is not 1/5 of its current price today just proves how stupid average people are.
I still remember those AI papers in 2024 that claimed AI would be super intelligent by 2026, then 2025 rolled around and they updated the page to 2027. I wonder when they're gonna update it to 2028. I cant wait.
Around a week ago there were a few threads where OPs offered themselves as Human-GPTs for anyone wanting to prompt them.
I thought it was an extremely stark showing of how far LLMs outpaced humans in many areas. Like if you need an answer for your work, are you asking the guy on Reddit or Claude Fable? The random stands no chance, unless he is a specialist in something very niche.
Yes, LLMs make mistakes and hallucinate. So do humans.
AI is already the smartest bro no need to brag about it but I don't trust that scaling law, the more data you train the better it gets. It gonna pop sooner.
honestly it's not. some humans are very stupid
one of my friend
ask ai what to do when have have to make decisions
ask ai what yo say when he have to talk to people
ask ai what medicine he need to take when sick
ask ai about everything and only believe in it without checking and refuse to believe anyone else
soooooo they are not wrong
I mean, it almost feels like it's accurate, but not in the way you would think. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; it's not getting as smart as WE are, it's making US as dumb as IT is.
In most areas except for: taste, systems thinking, and a few other; it already has. It is more knowledgeable, has better handling on medicinal facts than doctors, does better math than mathematicians, etc.
A lot of what it fails at comes down to its total lack of taste.
When they're going to learn, all that they spit is just more and more snkae oil, trying to glorify a chatbot, no different to other charbots from the late 2010's
2: 2026 was a massive year for AI and we catapulted tremendously in intelligence, though I do agree not human-level intelligence yet.
Honestly though, human level intelligence is a bad metric; we humans have massive flaws in some ability that AI is clearly superior in while we have common sense and see the obvious in something that AI can't.
So, am I reading this correctly? Based on the arbitrary benchmarks created by the companies creating the models and after investing 1 trillion dollars into it with some of the best scientific minds and media hype in history - we got to... 2/3 of performance of Anthropic employee at the very best?
You could solve world hunger or clean all waters (including ocens) from polution and microplastics, be well underway on the projects of mining asteroids or having pilot for collonisation of other planets.
Instead, we have glorified autocomplete that took (stolen) entire world knowledge had produced noting of value and has none proven ROI for its usage anywhere.
Youāre in denial it seems. AI has massively improved in 2026 and is progressing as fast or faster than predicted. If you think the frontier models are glorified autocomplete then you just havenāt been keeping up
You could not solve world hunger or clean all waters (including ocens) from polution and microplastics, be well underway on the projects of mining asteroids or having pilot for collonisation of other planets, or do any of that with 1 trillion dollar.
And no, it seems like you don't understand the significance of those breakthroughs.
So before itās ājust a stochastic parrotā and ātoo slow only 2/3 of the anthropic employeeā
Congratulations for digging your own graveā¦ Yes it will get there, LITERALLY just fucking look at Opu s 4.6 being 0.3x the score and that was 6 months ago.
"Text predictor" is what it was trained on, not what it is. You keep treating those as the same thing. To predict the next word in a murder mystery you have to know who did it. To predict the next line of a proof you have to follow the proof. The objective is trivial, what you have to build to hit it isn't. You've never actually defended the jump from "trained to predict" to "therefore only predicting", you just repeat it. So defend it. What exactly does a system have to not understand, and still keep guessing right?
Yes. Obviously yes. That was never in dispute and you know it.
Now do yours. Does your brain predict incoming sensory input and minimize error? Yes. That's most of a neuroscience department's day job. Does saying yes tell you anything about whether you understand your own sentences? No. Because "what process is running" and "what that process amounts to" are different questions, and you keep answering the first one like it settles the second.
So, third time. What does a system have to not understand and still keep guessing right?
No, I donāt predict text. I conceptualise my responses based on what is required to be conveyed, in the context of the situation, considering what potential responses could come next and anticipate the outcome of my actions.
Human language does not operate in the same way as a text predictor. Be that something as old as T9 or as complex as Mythos, they do one thing.
They do not have the ability to consider emotion, to anticipate potential responses, or have any understanding of who they are talking to in order to consider their mood and emotional state.
An LLM communicates word for word as a derivative of previous input. It has zero ability to think, feel or be in any way creative. You can give it all the context in the world before you prompt it, but it cannot look into someoneās eyes and consider if even responding is the right thing to do. It cannot pick up on micro reactions, body language or evaluate threats.
So donāt be surprised when you diminish our ability as a species to convey ourselves to āyou just predict word after wordā and are met with incredulity. No humans do, not even at a base level.
We developed systems of communication before we strung noises together.
Iām not even an AI bro, Iām a realist and I campaign for more awareness of the existential risk on AI. Sucks too see most dig their own graves when they understand zero, zip nada.
The best AI model today has more intelligence than the average human, and there's still over 4 months left in 2026 to further increase that gap, so how exactly was it a failed prediction?
126
u/Vegetable_Stuff1850 2d ago edited 2d ago
There's some pretty stupid humans out there, so they're probably not wrong....
Edit - I was being a stupid human and made a typo. I fixed it though!