> The video should have been much clearer about what was actually tested and what was actually trained. To the average listener it may have sounded like the AI

> The video should have been much clearer about what was actually tested and what was actually trained. To the average listener it may have sounded like the AI took the test cold, with a few sample items, like a human would, but that’s not actually what happened. I have to agree with this. I haven't watched the video, but that's exactly what the hype surrounding it made me think up until I read this sentence. An AI system that can be fine-tuned to achieve human level performance on a variety of intellectual puzzles still sounds like an important advance, don't get me wrong, but being able to manufacture a model that does what you need is very different than having a model that's already capable of everyone's needs.