So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others.
In another usage, we use the term to describe someone of above average intelligence (which is technically not really correct and actually not very intelligent).
100 IQ = 50% of the population is smarter than this.
80 IQ = not sure what the percentage is, but >50% of the population is smarter than this.
If any of the tables here are to be believed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_I...
then 80 IQ could mean 80% of the population is smarter.
I'll rephrase my "kinda dumb" to "dumb as rocks".
So, you’re not too far off numerically. 80 IQ is only a -1.33 Z-score. So, 9th percentile. 91% of people score higher than 80 IQ.
If by "intelligent" you're comparing with other primates, too, sure :-)
Intelligence is IMO an inherently comparative measure.
It's not "on/off", it's "smarter" (than a pile of rocks, than a slug, than another human).
So, yeah, you can be a dumb human but you'd be a smart chimpanzee. But we want to be comparing apples with apples in the context of this topic.
When people say "AI", everyone implicitly assumes the comparison with human intelligence. So "AI" needs to be as smart as the average human to be actual AI. Ok, AGI, if you prefer that term.
There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.
Do you also think that "intelligent alien life in space" means comparable to humans? What if we find something capable of reasoning, abstract thinking, rationality, adaptibility, etc - but much, much dumber than humans? That's intelligence, comparison to humans doesn't change anything about that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence - how could there be animal intelligence if "intelligence" means comparable to humans? "Crows are intelligent but nowhere near human-level" - this statement wouldn't make any sense if you're right, but it actually does make sense, IMHO.
> There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.
That thing with AI is called moving goalposts. And the finer terms - yeah of course we need to be able to be specific about our software, doesn't mean that's not AI. Shape recognition is talked about in neuropsychology for much longer than in AI, and many more terms that will certainly be soon reused.
So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?