> The typical AI seems more capable than the typical human to me
Your microwave is more capable than a typical human.
If of course your definition of capabilities is narrowly defined to computations and ignores the huge array of things humans can do that computers are no where close to.
anything involving an interface with the physical world.
For example, running a lemonade stand.
You'd need thousands, if not millions of dollars to build a robot machine with a computerized brain capable of doing what a 6 year old child can do - produce lemonade from simple ingredients (lemon, sugar, water) and sell it to consumers.
Same with basically all cooking/food-service and hospitality tasks, an physical therapy type tasks (massage, chiropractor, etc)...
heck, even driving on public roads still doesn't seem to be perfect, despite 10+ years on investment and research by leading tech companies, although there is also a regulatory hurdle here.
You seem to have shifted the conversation's goalposts there - those are things that computers can do, it just costs a lot.
And, more to the point, they aren't indicative of intelligence. Computers have cleared the intelligence requirements to run a lemonade stand by a large margin - and the other tasks too for that matter.
> those are things that computers can do, it just costs a lot
One could travel between continents in minutes on an ICBM with a reentry vehicle bolted to the front but we don't because it's too expensive. It's a perfectly reasonable constraint to demand that a technology be cost effective. Otherwise it has no practical value.
Your microwave is more capable than a typical human.
If of course your definition of capabilities is narrowly defined to computations and ignores the huge array of things humans can do that computers are no where close to.