>The difference being, probably the vast majority of humans _could_ publish in a journal if they devoted their life to it 100%. I believe that, yes. That's why

>The difference being, probably the vast majority of humans _could_ publish in a journal if they devoted their life to it 100%. I believe that, yes. That's why I said "realistically", because of course the vast majority of humans currently in existence actually cannot in a reasonable timeframe (keep in mind ChatGPT has been around for 8 months), no matter how much you incentivise them. And maybe if there were 7 billion AIs on the planet, 0.00174533469% of them could produce a publishable paper on mathematical theory throughout an average 60-80 years of life - I don't believe it, but we have nowhere near enough knowledge about current AI systems to say for sure right now. My point isn't that an AI couldn't generate a novel mathematical proof - eventually I'm certain one could, and we should definitely work towards it. My point is that it is absolutely absurd to say that an AI isn't intelligent if it can't generate a novel mathematical proof, because if that standard was applied to humans it would mean 99.9982546653% of us aren't intelligent.