depends on the circumstances. lin-manuel miranda can probably write a better musical by himself than a team of 20 people with equal input would.

also, the bottlenecks that teamwork helps solve (eg the high cost of gaining expertise and low throughput of reasoning capacity) may not be that relevant in the ai age

> by himself than a team of 20 people with equal input would.

Sure, but the result would still be far better than the average of the output of the 20 individuals taken alone.

> also, the bottlenecks that teamwork helps solve (eg the high cost of gaining expertise and low throughput of reasoning capacity) may not be that relevant in the ai age

It's always tempting to anthropomorphize these systems and conclude that what works for us would work for them, but yes we don't really know if it would bring anything to AI.

Functional groups which work well together, include open sharing of research and ideas, persistence of best output, are dedicated to realism, and are more focussed on problem solving than status display, will be smarter. The group works like a filter which generates multiple solutions and selects, remembers, and abstracts the best.

Dysfunctional groups which do the opposite will be catastrophically stupid.

There have been plenty of dysfunctional groups in history.

I wonder if there's research on this, like if you took a group of individuals who scored the same on an IQ test, then got them to solve one together, how would the score improve?

Is there a way of selecting people to cover each other's intellectual blind spots?