It totally could be meaningless. I think there is this conflation of two thing. I don't think "General Intelligence" is a thing. We don't have it, AIs probably won't. We have a collection of specialty neurological adaptations that are useful but certainly not adapted for "any" use. Even if they can be composed to be more powerful, there are a lot of limits to it.

This doesn't mean that AI won't get smarter than us at everything we can do, but based on the fact we are not getting much smarter we have to ask: is that just a limit of biology? Or are there scaling limits to Intelligence? Organizations and societies are a great example of the scaling limits of "Intelligence", they bypass a lot of human limits to make gesalt intelligent agents more reliable and less prone to certain biases, but generally not meaningfully "smarter" than any individual, just more patient and consistent. There are clear limits on the scalability Intelligence, just throwing more computational power at the problem isn't enough for runaway-agi

It's like saying a car is fast. Sure, the car is fast. Is it also reliable, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, or affordable? How does it handle? How does it do off-road? Can it fly? Can it operate underwater?

Real world fitness landscapes are complex and multidimensional.

My comment was a little snarky because while I like this site quite a bit for many reasons I do get a little fatigued by the prevalence of the IQ cult. The notion that there is a single metric on which brains can be sorted is sort of a sacred dogma around here, and one which to me is obviously quite wrong. All it takes is a casual glance at intelligence as it actually manifests in the only real world example of an intelligent system we have: biology. It's clearly a multidimensional quality that can be optimized for a large range of things just like anything else.

If intelligence is multidimensional in all other living things, by what rationale would we conclude that human intelligence is one-dimensional?

... or ...

If virtually every engineered or evolved capability is subject to multi-dimensional optimization, then why not also intelligence?

Yet we have a bunch of general attributes we expect when we say "car". Maybe "she's smart" is rather like "she has a car". You don't know whether it's a Porsche or a Truck, gas or electric, but you'll generally rely on her being able to cover larger distances than on foot, and at higher speeds, while also hauling some reasonable amount of luggage.

Absolutely true, but I'm not sure that's really a point of confusion. Almost everyone would agree that smart people aren't automatically good at athletics, or poetry, or woodworking. If you've seen people say that kind of thing I agree they're being silly.