[disgruntledphd2]

> but most people <=100 iq

This is incorrect, IQ tests are normally scaled such that average intelligence is 100, and such that they are approximately normally distributed so that most people will be somewhere between 85-115 (66% on average).

[selcuka]

> but most people <=100 iq

> average intelligence is 100

You both are saying the same thing.

IQ is defined such that both average and mean would be equal 100. The combination of sub-100 and exactly-100 would be more people than above-100, hence "most people <=100 iq".

[tptacek]

Both average and mean, you say.

[selcuka]

Oops, I meant both median and mean.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

Frankly I have no clue what value the term "average" has after trying to follow this conversation.

[anonzzzies]

Yep and those people can never 'win' against current llms, let alone future ones. Outside motorcontrol which I specifically excluded.

85 is special housing where I live... LLMs are far beyond that now.

[disgruntledphd2]

I'm not convinced this is true. I suspect that they'd mostly fail a version of Ravens matrices that didn't appear in the training set.

[rhdjsjebshjffn]

How are you living such that you're regularly pitting humans against computers

Not only is this unbelievable, it's reprehensible