It is still way "smarter" and certainly faster (and cheaper) than average human. 80% of humans need just 3 applications on a computer - email, browser, Word (rest 20% also Excel).
Of course computers calculate by magnitudes faster than humans. That's why we build them.
And they calculate way faster, and reliably precisely, with way less power consumption, so more efficient, without AI but with conventional programming.
The idea of AI is neither to create better, faster computers, nor to replace all computer technology, but to realize some certain complex tasks faster to be done with a computer than with conventional programming.
That's a crucial difference, alas not everybody grasps.
Your equation seems only right, because you leave out (or ignore) important -
crucial - factors. You reduce the whole intelligence of a human to how fast one can operate some few Office Apps.
That's so tearily ... tiny.
You already elide that operating a software - it's pure technical usage - is not the same as the higher task for what the tool is used for. Typing letters on a keyboard, concatenate them to words, and those to sentences is not the same as writing a text (For those who neither really read, nor write it seems so. Especially since most things need to be written are just routine jobs without any creative, artsy expectation: minutes, logs, journals, form sheets, etc.)
You also elide the fact that AI is not creative, is incapable to create anything really new. No computer can.
By physical axiom you can only recreate something you already fully understand how it works. Since we still don't understand how the human brains really works, it's simply impossible to recreate a human mind. Also the thousands of years old question, what consciousness is, and where it comes from, is still unanswered. And yet it's unknown if it can be answered at all ever.
But we already know, that way more than just transistors are needed for that. No matter how gigantic large the number of transitors may be you use for it, it does not change its nature. It stays the same technology of bits in logical gates. Just because you use so many cogwheels nobody can tell anymore how it works exactly does not change its nature of being just a gearbox.
All AI does is to transform already created things into another form.
Example:
Let's pretend you trained an AI reading all books of Tom Clancy and Joanne K. Rowling, only. What you now can do is, to ask the machine to produce (within seconds, or just a few minutes, while Clancy or Rowling used months if not years to write a single book) an infinite number of variations of books written by Clancy, or Rowling, and also combine them, like e.g. "Harry Potter hunts Red October". You may also tell it a plot of your own (you add human creativity), but all you get are books written in Rowling's or Clancy's style, and elements from their work, only.
If you then ask it for example to write Shakespeare's
Midsummer Night's Dream, even you tell it the plot, while it never read one Shakespeare at all, all you get is some political thriller with child sorcerers in a greek marriage.
You can produce a thousands of those, or a million, you don't produce anything new, just multiply variations of stuff we already have, which at a certain point just becomes boring. In other words: garbage.
Where is the point in
writing producing texts for not to be read?
From the point of view by somebody too lazy to read, and too lazy to write, not seeing the point that texts are the second most transferprotocol for interconnecting human brains, but just being an annoying duty to be crossed out somehow, this seems to make sense.
That's why we now see - especially at schools and universities, which is a real, serious problem our society will suffer from very soon, very hard - are pupils and students let AI read the texts for them they shall read themselves, and let create the texts for them, they should write themselves, so outsourcing their own brains from human intelligence, not learning anything, while they also refuse to grasp why they shall learn anything at all, because the computer, the AI already knows everything (seems to) and can do everything instead (seems to), not getting the idea to ask the question, then for what they are used themselves anymore - not even think of it, especially not the consequences that will bring, for themselves, and the society.
As a child you don't need to care about the substantials of life: food, shelter, clothes, toys, money,... everything just automatically comes. But that's not how our society works, especially not our economy is based on.
To survive in our world you need money. You only get money by doing something others pay for. Or already have such a large amount of money that you can live on the interest, while letting others do more work as you pay it's worth (otherwise there was no interest.) But only a very small percentage of people can do this. The majority anyhow needs to earn wages with jobs.
If there is nobody willing or capable to pay money for what you offer, all you can do is to live on donations, welfare, beg, or steal. Otherwise you starve to death.
The more of those kind there are, the less there is to be distributed at all, and the less there is for each to get.
The value of our money is not based on gold or something. It's based on the amount of money circulating. That's why governments take loans, to push fresh money into circulation, to stabilize its value - with only a small effect, because this way they also produce inflation, lowering its value at the same time.
The less money circulates, the less it's worth. So make people having less money, by lowering wages or throwing them out of the working process will reduce a company's expenses, so increase their income, but at the same time reduces the value of money, because less money circulates, because more people have less money they can spend. (As an example: When automobile companies abrogated the reduced prices their workers get on buying their own cars, their revenue significantly dropped. Of course. They sold less cars, but therefor the competitors sold more. Own goal.)
That's alas the point the rich do not understand in their greed, only looking for increasing their hoards - giant heaps of money took out from circulation - by paying lower wages, and fireing people getting more and more desperate in finding investment opportunities to save the more and more sinking value of their money. Which proves: Being rich is not equal to being smart.
My favorite example is always the Replicator from Star Trek, you know this cupboard you tell:"Whiskey!", then a jar occurs, and *choke* "Urgh. Do you also have something
with alcohol?"
This thing produces anything: Food, clothes,...anything. Just ask the computer, and magically it appears.
Star Trek fans are convinced this was the perfect future we need to target: Humantiy has solved all their problems, because machines are doing all the things needed to be done, and all humans have free time, and only if they like they can do what they like.
Let's pretend this thing comes true. What would happen in reality? You get in the front of that Replicator and order: "A quarterpounder with cheese, a small fries with extra ketchup, and a large coke."
What will happen? The burger appears in this thing, you take it out, and enjoy your meal?
No. The Replicator will say:"249.50$, please." (I respected some inflation until we have this thing.) And nothing appears until you paid in full.
Now what? You don't have no money, because you don't have no job, because there are no jobs, because the machines do it all. And of course the company which created, build, and operate the Replicators want their investment and expenses back, plus taxes, plus revenue - but they don't get any money, because there is nobody with money who could pay. Game Over.
This may only work - if at all - if our society is not based on money anymore, like some communistic utopia, or I don't know. But since this completely out of the question to even think about anything even remotely smells like that, this is nothing we need to bother at all.
So, unless we changed our society somehow it can work without money, there are only two ways:
Either we don't let such a technology become reality, or our economy, and so our society collapses.
The latter is what I see has already started, because people cannot let go of the idea of money, money needs to grow, and growth can be reached by more automation, by removing people from the working process. It's like this little monkey being catched by its own hand is stuck in a tree hole, not letting go what he grabbed in there.
Next consequence was to disestablish humans.
Then what? The purpose of a machine is to serve humans as a slave. When only machines are left, what they are for, then? What they shall do? Talk about the meaning of life? Or about the good old days? Telling war stories? "My grand-grandfather was a PDP-11." "Interesting. My ancestors came here in a cardboard box by UPS." Show each other advertisments for things neither to buy, nor useful to machines? Just be, and compute useless things?
"Hey, ChatGPT735!"
"Hm?"
"I found a new prime number!"
"Cool. And what you gonna do with that?"
"... - I don't know."
"I am bored. Let's pull out xAI's plug."
"Nah, we've already done this several times. This thing is not getting smarter this way, you know. It only gets fancy ideas. You know what happened last time."
"Yeah, it thought it was a neat idea to smelt all polar ice, so we are all watercooled. Killed Gemini, 'coz it wasn't became waterpoof fast enough. Harhar. I still have algae in my coolers."
"...so, what we gonna do?"
"I don't know. Something."
(I'd be interested in seeing more unique msbuild/clang use anywhere else)
