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

Written by: 0xTodd

I didn't expect the last post to spark everyone's desire for discussion. In fact, we are essentially talking about the same thing, just with slightly different descriptions of the values.

Everyone has heard a saying that the gap between people can sometimes be larger than the gap between a person and a dog. However, this saying was born before the current wave of AI.

Today I tried to discuss this matter in a quantitative way. The numbers are just me thinking off the top of my head, meant to bring a smile to you, so don't take it too seriously.

Assuming a primary school student's cognition is 10 points, a PhD is 60 points, a university professor is 75 points, and Einstein is 100 points.

10 points and 100 points are indeed too different, a difference of as much as 10x, saying it's the difference between a person and a dog is not wrong.

The AI argument for cognition in 2025 is worth at least 40 points. Considering that AI is a generalist, while PhDs and professors are typically specialists, AI is actually worth at least double that, making it 80 points.

Then there is:

• Elementary school student +AI=90 points

• Doctor +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 changed from 10x to 2x.

This is my point of view, AI is widening the gap between small humans.

Some might raise objections: No, primary school students definitely can't compare to university professors when it comes to AI development.

It's just like in One Piece, where characters have different levels of development regarding the Devil Fruits. Similarly, with the Gum-Gum Fruit, Luffy at level 1 definitely can't beat Luffy at level 4 years later (novice vs. 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 achieve a score of 20 points;

• People who are very skilled at using AI (for example, high-intensity Vibe Coding) can even achieve a score of 100 through overclocking.

So:

• Primary school students + AI beginners = 30 points

• Einstein + AI Expert = 200 points

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

This is the perspective of the two teachers, Lao Bai and Alvin, and they are not wrong.

However, I still want to say that my views seem to conflict with those of the two teachers, but their core is similar. Why is that?

Because I assume AI will continue to evolve:

First, become smarter;

Second, it is easy to get started.

Now, 2025 is just a transitional year. As time goes on, it will become easier to become a Prompt engineer, the barriers will be lower, and it will turn into “as long as you can talk, it's fine.” Learning how to use AI will definitely become easier, not harder.

We assume that after AI becomes smarter, it may reach a score of 240, with development levels ranging from low to high, which are 200, 240, and 280.

Then:

• Elementary school students is 10+200=210 points

• Einstein is 100+280=380 points

The gap between the two is 170 points, but it has dropped to only 1.8x, not even 2x. The absolute difference has increased, but the relative value has decreased.

So what about in 10 years? Let's assume a super optimistic scenario where AI cognitive evolution reaches around 1000 points.

So at this time:

• Elementary school student 1010 points

• Einstein 1100 points

(If this day really comes) even Einstein would not be able to bridge the gap with elementary school students.

Many believe that the emergence of AI has actually widened the gap between humans. I think this is just a * temporary state *, because AI is still in its infancy, and currently, the level of AI development varies among people.

But AI has replaced writers, replaced artists, replaced dancers, replaced artists… these professions are falling one by one, are you still worried that AI cannot replace the trainers who “teach how to fully develop AI potential”?

Come on, this is what they do best.

In the future, the average potential for human utilization of AI development will be 80%-120%, which will be the norm rather than an exception.

The smarter AI becomes, the smaller the role of humans, and the smaller the gap between people.

It's like two martial arts masters suddenly discovering that they can use their shoulders to carry rocket launchers to bombard each other. After all, what difference does it make if you've trained for 10 years in boxing and kicking, and your opponent has trained for 15 years in swordsmanship?