This feels like a generalized extension of the classic mis-reasoned response to 'A computer can now play chess.'
Common non-technical chain of thought after learning this: 'Previously, only humans could play chess. Now, computers can play chess. Therefore, computers can now do other things that previously only humans could do.'
The error is assuming that problems can only be solved via levels of human-style general intelligence.
Obviously, this is false from the way that computers calculate arithmetic, optimize via gradient descent, and innumerable other examples, but it does seem to be a common lay misunderstanding.
Probably why IBM abused it with their Watson marketing.
In reality, for reliable capabilities reasoning, the how matters very much.
Common non-technical chain of thought after learning this: 'Previously, only humans could play chess. Now, computers can play chess. Therefore, computers can now do other things that previously only humans could do.'
The error is assuming that problems can only be solved via levels of human-style general intelligence.
Obviously, this is false from the way that computers calculate arithmetic, optimize via gradient descent, and innumerable other examples, but it does seem to be a common lay misunderstanding.
Probably why IBM abused it with their Watson marketing.
In reality, for reliable capabilities reasoning, the how matters very much.