It's a clear analogy.
This should become an article explaining what AGI really means.
I think the question , "Can this AGI be my start-up co-founder? Or my employee #1?"
Or something like that is a great metric for when we've reached the AGI finish line.
This sounds like a definition from someone who never interacts with anyone except the top 1% performance level of people, and those who have had strong levels of education.
Go into a manufacturing, retail or warehouse facility. By this definition, fewer than ten or twenty percent of the people there would have "general intelligence", and that's being generous.
Not because they are stupid: that's the point; they're not. But it's setting the bar for "general intelligence" so absurdly high that it would not include many people who are, in fact, intelligent.
> I'm not sure I would classify your average warehouse worker as particularly intelligent.
I'm not sure I wouldn't. Just because corporations treat them as mindless fungible automatons doesn't mean they actually are. Some of the most brilliant and creative solutions to problems I've seen have been in warehouse settings by warehouse workers.
> I would say AI already has the decision making and communication capabilities to do this sort of work.
I wouldn't - especially if GPT-whatever is the AI in question. If a picker or packer "hallucinated" facts with anywhere near the frequency ChatGPT does (for example), one'd be canned within the hour.
Handling exceptions is another area where software (AI or otherwise) notoriously struggles. A human has a much easier time sensing whether or not a product is broken or defective (before shipping it out) than an AI does. A human has a much easier time understanding when processes need to be broken due to impossible constraints than an AI does.
There is a place for software automation of warehouse processes (that was, in fact, my career for a time), but we are very far off from that software replacing humans entirely - and certainly not without designing warehouses specifically to be as accomodating as possible to that software.
> In fact one of the main issues in our society is the vast gulf between the most intelligent and the least.
The gulf is in socioeconomic privilege, not intelligence. The rich and powerful like to claim they're more intelligent than the unwashed masses in order to rationalize their wealth and power, but the reality is that - in an actually egalitarian society, wherein everyone actually has equality of opportunity - the vast majority of those "geniuses" would fail to be particularly exceptional.
That we as a society haven't identified and corrected this is the main issue in our society.
