There is no "human level" because we don't even understand what we mean by "human level". We don't know what metrics to use, we don't even know what to measure.

There is no "human level" because we don't even understand what we mean by "human level". We don't know what metrics to use, we don't even know what to measure. > Two different general intelligences built on different architectures should be able to converge on similar solutions (for example solutions based on lowest energy states) because they are operating in the same physical realm. Lots of things connected to intelligence do not operate (much) in any physical realm. Also, you've really missed the point of the analogy. It's not a question of whether AGI would pick the same solution for fast air travel as HGI. It is that there are least two solutions to the challenge of moving things through the air in a controlled way, and they don't really work in the same way at all. Consequently, we should be ready for the possibility that there is more than one way to do the things LLMs (and to some degree) humans do with text/language, and that they may not be related to each very much. This is a counter to the claim that "since LLMs get so close to human language behavior, it seems quite likely human language behavior arises from a system like an LLM".