I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. It sounds like you are accusing me of thinking that skills are binary—either you have them or you don’t. I agree, in reality many skills are scalar instead of binary; you can have them to greater or lesser degrees. I don’t think that changes the analysis much though.
length X but not above length X, it’s gotta be for some reason—some skill that the AI lacks, which isn’t important for tasks below length X but which tends to be crucial for tasks above length X.
My point is, maybe there are just many skills that are at 50% of human, then go up to 60%, then 70%, etc, and can keep going up linearly to 200% or 300%. It’s not like it lacked the skill then suddenly stopped lacking it, it just got better and better at it
I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. It sounds like you are accusing me of thinking that skills are binary—either you have them or you don’t. I agree, in reality many skills are scalar instead of binary; you can have them to greater or lesser degrees. I don’t think that changes the analysis much though.
My point is, maybe there are just many skills that are at 50% of human, then go up to 60%, then 70%, etc, and can keep going up linearly to 200% or 300%. It’s not like it lacked the skill then suddenly stopped lacking it, it just got better and better at it
I agree with that, in fact I think that’s the default case. I don’t think it changes the bottom line, just makes the argument more complicated.
I don’t see how the original argument goes through if it’s by default continuous.