[throw2500]

> Pick any human. I claim there exists some subject that ChatGPT has a better understanding of than this human, based on a surface-level evaluation.

Isn't that a low bar, though? For any human, you can find some subject that that human knows next to nothing about. It's kind of like saying "Google is smarter than humanity because for any human, I can find some fact that a Google search will reveal that that human doesn't know".

[golol]

Maybe it is a low-bar, that's subjective. But I do mean understanding, not just knowing some facts. You could say that google was the point where we could say "Pick any human. I claim there exists some subjects that Google has more factual knowledge of than this human, based on a pure reproduction based evaluation."

With ChatGPT I claim that it beats humans in real "understanding" of at least some subject