[jacquesm]

> capabilities better than 50% of skilled adults.

That sents the bar unreasonably high in my opinion. Almost all of humanity does not have skills 'better than 50% of skilled adults' by definition and those definitely qualify as generally intelligent.

[godelski]

It's also rather vague and at least in my first pass skim I'm not seeing them define what it means to be skilled or unskilled. So I'm not sure the metric is even meaningful without this because it's not like you're one day unskilled in driving a car and the next day you're "skilled." Does that mean anyone with a drivers license? Does that mean a professional driver? We talking taxi driver, nascar, rally racing, F1? What? Skills are on a continuous distribution and our definitions of skilled vs unskilled are rather poorly defined and typically revolve around employment rather than capabilities.

I hope I just missed it because the only clarification I saw was with this example

> e.g., “Competent” or higher performance on a task such as English writing ability would only be measured against the set of adults who are literate and fluent in English

[jacquesm]

That's the whole problem with all these definitions: they are rooted in very imprecise terms whose meaning seems to depend on the beholder of the prose.

[zone411]

I don't see the issue. They listed different levels and that's one of them. Level 1 compares to unskilled humans.

[p1esk]

Pretty much every adult has some kind of skills, so this means half of (adult) humanity have skills better than 50% of skilled adults.