The AI Era: When the "Difference Between Humans and Dogs" Shrinks to the "Difference Between Humans"

I didn't expect the last post to spark such a discussion. We were essentially talking about the same thing, but everyone described the numbers slightly differently.

Everyone has heard the saying that the difference between people is sometimes greater than the difference between people and dogs. But this saying came about before the current wave of AI.

Today I'll try to talk about this in a quantitative way. The numbers are just something I came up with on a whim, just to make you laugh, so don't take it too seriously.

Let's say a primary school student's cognitive ability is 10 points, a PhD student's is 60 points, a university professor's is 75 points, and Einstein's is 100 points.

The difference between 10 points and 100 points is indeed huge, a difference of 10x, which is comparable to the difference between a human and a dog.

In 2025, AI's cognitive value will be at least 40 points. Considering that AI requires general knowledge, while PhDs and professors are generally specialists, AI's actual value could at least double to 80 points.

Therefore, we have:

-Elementary school student + AI = 90 points

- PhD + AI = 140 points

-University professor + AI = 155 points

- Einstein + AI = 180 points

With AI, the absolute gap between elementary school students and Einstein remains 90 points, but the relative gap has decreased from 10x to 2x.

This is my view: AI is narrowing the gap between humans.

Some might object: That's not right, elementary school students certainly can't compare to university professors in terms of AI development.

Just like in One Piece, the characters develop their Devil Fruit abilities to varying degrees. Even with the same Gum-Gum Fruit, Luffy using Gear 1 would definitely lose to Luffy using Gear 4 many years later (a novice versus a seasoned expert).

Indeed, if AI is worth 80 points:

-People who don't know how to use it (like occasionally asking a question) can only perform at 20% capacity;

- People who are very good at using AI (such as high-intensity Vibe Coding) can overclock and get even 100 points.

so:

-Elementary school student + AI novice = 30 points

Einstein + AI expert = 200 points

The gap has widened from 90 points to 170 points, so with AI, the differences between people have actually increased!

These are the views of teachers Lao Bai and Alvin, and they are not wrong.

However, I must say this: although my views and those of the two teachers seem to conflict, their core principles are similar. Why is that?

Because I assume that AI will continue to evolve:

First, become smarter;

Second, it becomes easier to use.

2025 is just a transitional year. As time goes on, becoming a Prompt engineer will become easier and easier, the threshold will become lower and lower, and it will become "just need to talk to someone". Learning how to use AI will definitely become easier, not harder.

Let's assume that after AI becomes smarter, it might reach a score of 240, and then the development level, from low to high, will be 200, 240, and 280 points respectively.

So:

-For elementary school students, the answer is 10 + 200 = 210 points.

Einstein's score was 100 + 280 = 380.

The difference between the two is 170 points, but it's no longer 2x, only 1.8x. The absolute value difference has increased, but the relative value has decreased.

What about 10 years from now? Let's assume, in a super optimistic scenario, that AI's cognitive abilities evolve to around 1000 points.

So at this point:

- Elementary school student 1010 points

- Einstein 1100 points

(If that day ever comes) even Einstein wouldn't be able to differentiate himself from an elementary school student.

Many people believe that the advent of AI has widened the gap between humans, but I think this is only a temporary situation. Because AI is still in its early stages, people's understanding and development of AI varies greatly.

But AI has replaced writers, illustrators, dancers, artists... one by one these professions have fallen, so why are you worried that AI can't replace the training teachers who "teach people how to 100% develop AI's potential"?

Come on, this is what they do for a living.

In the future, it will be the norm for humans to develop and utilize 80%-120% of the potential of AI, rather than an isolated case.

The smarter AI becomes, the less human intervention is needed, and the smaller the gap between people becomes.

It's like two martial arts masters suddenly discovering that they are allowed to use shoulder-mounted rocket launchers to bombard each other. What difference does it make if one of them has practiced martial arts for 10 years and the other has practiced swordsmanship for 15 years?