As I see it, even if you disregard the job of a person, ot their hobbies, or whatever intellectual activity that only a subset of the population engages with, you are left with a machine that talks, moves, drives, reads, writes, lies convincingly enough, manages money, enjoys a movie and can explain the plot and find plotholes and racord mistakes, etc.

That's millions of light years ahead than any current AI that only looks up very fast the solution space for code, language or math.

Not to mention that humans can do all of that stuff while fueled only by a can of Mt Dew and a bag of cheezies.

> Did anyone ever claim that Humans are "general intelligence"?

Right. So you admit that what we're looking for now is super human. Not just human, but more than human.

That's those goalposts I was talking about.

A bit like calling a crane "superhuman strength"

I mean sure, but who cares? It's a machine.

The same way an excavator is not judged by human standards, neither should AI be. It's a machine

Yes, I would call a crane superhuman strength. I think that's exactly what it should be called.

Requiring the intelligence to be above human is a shifted goalpost. Full stop.