Agreed. There is a phenomenon that I haven’t found a good name for, which I first observed in self-driving cars: “AI made a mistake that only a really dumb huma

Agreed. There is a phenomenon that I haven’t found a good name for, which I first observed in self-driving cars: “AI made a mistake that only a really dumb human could make, therefore AI is really dumb”. If you imagine the spider chart of capabilities, it’s certain that AI will be super-human on average before it is super-human on each dimension, so even when it can replace 50% of current jobs it’s likely to have its own “cognitive biases” that seem dumb to us. I think this is a cognitive bias on our part (pattern matching instead of properly probability-weighting, maybe the conjunctive fallacy). I regret the snark in my post but I find the “pretend not to understand someone’s clear point” rhetorical device obnoxious. I am aware of a few reasonable arguments against Hinton’s position (I don’t happen to agree with them), but they require more finesse to construct.