[advael]

I mean I could equally say that the opposing bias is

1. Choose a few good blunt instruments we use to gatekeep students on the premise that it tests their "intelligence" (or wait, do we mean subject matter comprehension with this one?)

2. Apply a big ol' machine learning model to those tests

3. Woa it's smarter than a third grader! OMG it's smarter than a lawyer! You guys this must be ASI already!

Rhetoric and selective rigor can justify any perspective. Smart and stupid arguments can be made for any position. Water is wet

I also can't claim to know with certainty whether transformers are going to end up being AGI in some meaningful sense, but I will definitely say that we've created a lot of rubrics for assessing human intelligence that mostly exist for expediency, and a cursory glance at education should tell you there's a lot of Goodhart's Law going on with all of 'em. I know for a fact I can do a damn good job on your average multiple choice test on knowing some etymology and being good at logical elimination, and I can bullshit my way through an essay, both without taking the class, and I view this more as a flaw in the instrument than evidence that I'm a godlike superintelligence that can just know anything without studying it. Humans make a lot of tests that are soft to bullshitting with a little pattern-recognition thrown in