Author: 0xTodd
I didn't expect my last post to spark so much discussion. Essentially, we're all talking about the same thing, just with slightly different descriptions of the numbers.
We've all heard the saying: sometimes the gap between two people is bigger than the gap between a person and a dog. But this saying was born before the current wave of AI.
Today, I'll try to quantify this. The numbers are all rough estimates, just for fun—don't take them too seriously.
Let's say a primary school student's cognitive ability is 10 points, a PhD is 60 points, a university professor is 75 points, and Einstein is 100 points.
The difference between 10 and 100 points is indeed huge—a full 10x difference. It's not wrong to call it the difference between a person and a dog.
However, the AI of 2025 is worth at least 40 points. Considering AI is a generalist, while PhDs and professors are usually specialists, AI's actual value could be at least doubled to 80 points.
So we have:
- Primary student + AI = 90 points
- PhD + AI = 140 points
- Professor + AI = 155 points
- Einstein + AI = 180 points
With AI, the absolute gap between the primary student and Einstein is still 90 points, but the relative gap has shrunk from 10x to 2x.
This is my point: AI is narrowing the gap between humans.
Some might object: That's not right. A primary student certainly can't develop AI like a professor can.
It's like in One Piece, where characters develop their Devil Fruit abilities differently. The same Gomu Gomu no Mi, Luffy in first gear definitely can't beat Luffy years later in fourth gear (a novice vs. a seasoned expert).
Indeed, if AI is worth 80 points:
- Someone who doesn't know how to use it well (e.g., only asks an occasional question) might only get 20 points out of it;
- Someone very skilled at using AI (e.g., high-intensity vibe coding) might overclock it to get even 100 points.
So:
- Primary student + AI novice = 30 points
- Einstein + AI expert = 200 points
The gap has widened from 90 points to 170 points! So with AI, the gap between people has actually increased!
This is the view held by teachers Lao Bai and Alvin, and they are not wrong.
However, I must add a 'but'. While my view seems to conflict with theirs, the core idea is actually similar. Why?
Because I assume AI will continue to evolve:
First, it will become smarter;
Second, it will become easier to use.
The year 2025 is just a transitional period. The further we go, the easier it will become to be a Prompt engineer. The barrier will get lower and lower, to the point where 'having a mouth is enough'. Learning how to use AI will definitely become easier, not harder.
Let's assume that as AI gets smarter, it might reach 240 points. Then the level of utilization could range from low to high: 200, 240, 280 points.
Then:
- Primary student: 10 + 200 = 210 points
- Einstein: 100 + 280 = 380 points
The gap is 170 points, but it's not even 2x anymore—it's only 1.8x. The absolute gap has increased, but the relative gap has shrunk.
What about in 10 years? Let's be super optimistic and assume AI's cognitive ability evolves to around 1000 points.
Then:
- Primary student: 1010 points
- Einstein: 1100 points
(If this day ever comes) Even Einstein won't be able to pull far ahead of the primary student.
People think that the birth of AI has widened the gap between humans. I believe this is only a *temporary state* because AI is just emerging, and currently, people's ability to utilize it varies greatly.
But AI has replaced writers, replaced illustrators, replaced dancers, replaced artists... As these professions fall one by one, are you still worried that AI won't replace the training teachers who 'teach people how to 100% unlock AI's potential'?
Come on, that's its specialty.
In the future, it will be the norm, not the exception, for humans to utilize 80%-120% of AI's potential on average.
The smarter AI gets, the smaller the human role becomes, and the smaller the gap between humans becomes.
It's like two martial arts masters suddenly finding out they are allowed to use rocket launchers. What difference does it make if one has practiced fists and feet for 10 years and the other has practiced sword fighting for 15 years?
