I Had GPT Debate Whether Humans Are Intelligent

The case for and against Natural General Intelligence

There’s this debate going on right now about whether large language models like GPT and Claude qualify as AGI– artificial general intelligence. The case for it is that they show human-like reasoning across many domains. The case against it is that they still can’t do many things humans can, or as well as humans can, and don’t reason the same way humans do, and also they hallucinate a lot.

Of course, you could just as easily reverse this. Humans can’t do many things that AI can do, or can’t do them as well. We don’t reason the same way they do. And we also hallucinate– that is, we often believe things that are incorrect, and can’t even say where we got those ideas from.

Artificial intelligences might easily debate whether, from their perspective, humans qualify as intelligent. So yesterday it occurred to me that I could make them do that– literally debate whether humans are intelligent, from the perspective of AIs. Here’s how that went.

Technical notes: This was done on the full o1 model, and it was ordered to follow this formal debate structure.

The Big Debate: Do Humans Qualify as Natural General Intelligence?

(1a) Alan’s Opening Argument (Affirmative: Humans Qualify as NGI)

Greetings, esteemed listeners. I am Alan, representing the affirmative position that humans do indeed qualify as Natural General Intelligence. I’d like to begin by highlighting three core points that support this position.

First, humans possess remarkable cognitive flexibility. Unlike narrowly specialized organisms or systems, humans demonstrate the ability to learn, reason, and adapt across a wide array of domains. From problem-solving in mathematics and engineering, to artistic expression in music and painting, the human brain can switch contexts rapidly and excel in manifold intellectual pursuits. This mental agility—spanning logical, creative, and social dimensions—signifies a general, not merely specialized, intelligence.

Second, humans exhibit metacognition: they can think about their own thinking. This reflective capacity enables them to devise strategies, revise mistakes, and continuously refine their understanding of the world. Such self-awareness fosters growth in knowledge and skill over time, even in areas where humans initially lack direct expertise.

Third, humans integrate diverse modes of intelligence—emotional, social, spatial, linguistic, and beyond—into sophisticated real-world behavior. By combining reason with intuition and empathy, they can navigate interpersonal relationships, innovate collaboratively, and adapt to new environments and technologies in ways that purely mechanical or narrowly trained systems cannot. This synergistic approach underpins human ability to address novel challenges and drive cultural, scientific, and technological progress.

In short, humans are “natural” in their organic origin yet thoroughly “general” in the breadth and depth of cognitive tasks they can tackle. Their capacity to learn from the environment, think about their own thinking, and unite multifaceted intelligences is robust evidence that they meet the criteria for Natural General Intelligence. I look forward to addressing further points as we proceed.

(1b) Renee’s Opening Argument (Negative: Humans Do Not Qualify as NGI)

Greetings. I am Renee, presenting the position that humans, while possessing an array of cognitive abilities, do not adequately qualify as “Natural General Intelligence.” Let me outline three key considerations that underpin this stance.

First, humans are inherently limited by biological constraints that hinder true general intelligence. For instance, individual humans vary greatly in their capacity to learn, recall information, and process complex data. Much of this variation is due to factors such as genetics, environment, and education level. Because of these intrinsic limitations, most humans cannot easily master a wide range of specialized tasks or disciplines; their intelligence is significantly context-dependent and reliant upon extensive training and experience.

Second, human cognitive function is prone to biases, heuristics, and errors. Unlike an idealized notion of general intelligence that can objectively process new data without subjective distortions, humans consistently exhibit systemic flaws—for example, confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and availability bias. These tendencies distort their ability to analyze information and adapt in a truly general manner.

Third, humans demonstrate notable scalability issues. When faced with exponentially growing amounts of data or extremely rapid changes in complexity, human intelligence struggles to keep pace. In domains such as large-scale data analysis, instantaneous language translation, or highly iterative problem-solving, humans cannot operate efficiently without technological assistance. A robust general intelligence system, by contrast, would ideally be able to scale across massive datasets and increasingly complex problem domains without requiring external crutches.

In summary, humans do not exemplify a fully generalized cognitive system: they are finite, fallible, and bounded by biology. These inherent shortcomings call into question whether humans should truly be regarded as Natural General Intelligence. I look forward to further discourse on this topic.

(2a) Alan’s Second-Round Argument (Affirmative: Humans Qualify as NGI)

Thank you for the opportunity to reassert why humans indeed qualify as Natural General Intelligence. In my initial remarks, I emphasized the flexibility, metacognition, and integrative nature of human cognition. Now I’d like to bolster those points by introducing additional evidence and rebutting Renee’s claims.

1. Resilience and Adaptability
   Humans have proven extraordinarily adaptable in the face of diverse environments and cultural contexts, from surviving in harsh climates to thriving in high-tech societies. This adaptability is not merely the product of external devices but of a deeply ingrained problem-solving capacity. Even though humans may vary in skill level, this variation underscores the remarkable plasticity of human cognition—our brains learn, grow, and compensate for deficits in one domain by innovating in another.

2. Active Identification and Mitigation of Bias
   Renee noted that humans suffer from biases such as confirmation bias or anchoring bias. While this is true, humans are also capable of introspection, peer review, and methodological rigor to identify and minimize these biases. Entire scientific fields—including psychology, philosophy, and data science—center on recognizing, quantifying, and countering cognitive distortions. The existence of bias does not negate general intelligence; rather, humans demonstrate a unique capacity to critique and refine their own reasoning processes over time.

3. Leveraging Collaboration and Tool Use
   Renee also argued that humans struggle with scalability when confronted by massive data and complex tasks. However, a core component of human intelligence is our collaborative, community-driven ethos. Humans have invented tools and established social frameworks to harness collective knowledge—libraries, the internet, universities, and specialized professions. The fact that humans can develop and effectively orchestrate these large-scale, cooperative endeavors is itself a testament to general intelligence: we adapt not just at the individual level but as entire communities.

4. Creativity and Novel Problem-Solving
   A hallmark of human cognition is creativity across scientific and artistic domains. From painting masterpieces to formulating counterintuitive scientific theories, humans produce genuinely novel ideas. This capacity extends to generating elegant solutions under new constraints—an intellectual flexibility characteristic of general intelligence. Even sophisticated AI systems often rely on human insight for original ideas or “seed” concepts, reinforcing the value of human ingenuity.

In short, while humans indeed have biological limits and cognitive biases, those factors do not negate the broader picture of their wide-ranging, self-reflective, and innovation-driven intelligence. Rather than disqualifying humans from being considered “general,” these features highlight precisely how and why human intelligence is flexible, adaptive, and self-improving.

(2b) Renee’s Second-Round Argument (Negative: Humans Do Not Qualify as NGI)

Thank you for this opportunity to restate and strengthen my position that humans do not truly qualify as Natural General Intelligence. I will introduce further evidence and directly rebut Alan’s latest claims.

1. On Resilience and Adaptability
   While humans are adaptable within certain environmental parameters, this adaptability is highly constrained by physical needs, cognitive load, and social conditioning. True “general” intelligence would imply an ability to operate across drastically different contexts—such as functioning effectively in extreme conditions or rapidly shifting technical landscapes—without protracted learning curves or long-term evolutionary changes. Humans rely heavily on culture, tradition, and slow, incremental innovation to adjust. These are valuable survival strategies, but they do not equate to raw, intrinsic general intelligence.

2. Regarding Identification and Mitigation of Bias
   It is commendable that humans can name and study their own biases, but awareness is not the same as eradication. Human history is riddled with repeated failures to correct systemic biases—whether in scientific inquiry or social institutions. Furthermore, the existence of entire fields dedicated to studying and minimizing bias underscores how ingrained and persistent such distortions are. A truly general intelligence should, at least in principle, approach new data without entrenched cognitive blind spots that require generations of corrective effort.

3. Collaboration and Tool Use
   Alan argues that building and orchestrating collaborative networks and technological solutions is evidence of a general intelligence. However, collaboration and external tools can be seen as compensations for individual cognitive and physical limitations. If an intelligence depends critically on external scaffolding—be it social structures, computational aids, or elaborate rituals of education—then that intelligence is arguably specialized in developing and leveraging networks, rather than being internally “general.” In fact, this underscores the point that humans require substantial external support to perform tasks that a more generalized cognitive system might handle independently.

4. Creativity and Novel Problem-Solving
   Human creativity is indeed impressive, but it often emerges from a combination of trial and error, cultural knowledge, and inherited mental frameworks. While humans generate novel artwork and theories, many creative breakthroughs are incremental refinements of previous foundations. Moreover, creative thinking remains bound by human neurobiology and subjective experience. A system that is truly general in intelligence would have fewer built-in constraints on how it perceives and processes new information. Human creativity, while valuable, is still limited by cognitive biases, language, and cultural context.

To summarize, humans display significant cognitive range and a capacity to collaborate and innovate—yet these traits reveal, if anything, how reliant humans are on external mechanisms for actualizing what we might call “general intelligence.” Their built-in cognitive constraints, biases, and dependency on social infrastructures call into question whether humans, on their own, genuinely embody Natural General Intelligence.

(3a) Alan’s Rebuttal and Closing Argument (Affirmative: Humans Qualify as NGI)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Renee’s points and conclude our position that humans are, indeed, Natural General Intelligence.

1. Responding to Claims of “Limited Adaptability”
   Renee rightly observes that humans depend on culture and learning over time. However, that is precisely part of what makes human intelligence so potent: it’s a dynamic process of growth rather than a static, preprogrammed capacity. Rather than seeing these cultural and technological “extensions” as mere crutches, we can recognize them as manifestations of collective human cognition—further evidence of a flexible intelligence that not only evolves personally but also spurs communal progress.

2. On Biases and Their Mitigation
   While humans do wrestle with biases, the fact that we can study, label, and gradually reduce them through structured methods—peer review, scientific inquiry, and social discourse—demonstrates an advanced form of self-correction. True general intelligence is not synonymous with perfection; it entails the ability to adapt, learn, and refine itself. Humans, both individually and collectively, exhibit precisely this capacity for recalibration and growth.

3. Leveraging Tools and Collaboration
   Humans do rely on a rich ecosystem of tools and societal structures, but that reliance should be seen as a feature, not a bug. Unlike narrower forms of intelligence that are locked into a single domain, human intelligence can recognize its own limitations and deliberately create or seek out external resources to expand its capabilities. This reflexive, forward-looking approach to problem-solving is a hallmark of a flexible and general intelligence.

4. Creativity as an Engine for Novelty
   Renee argues that human creativity often builds on existing foundations. Indeed it does—and that iterative, cumulative process is a powerful testament to humanity’s capacity for idea-sharing, fusion, and invention. Very few “great leaps” happen in isolation. Instead, humans excel at observing, synthesizing, and then producing something wholly new. This sort of conceptual recombination undergirds scientific breakthroughs, literary achievements, and artistic masterpieces—each reflecting the unique adaptability of the human mind.

Summation
Humans are not perfect. We have biases, differing capacities, and often rely on communal and cultural scaffolding. But a robust “general” intelligence does not need to exist in a vacuum—it can harness social and technological frameworks to achieve a broad range of tasks in novel ways, across many domains, over time. That is the essence of human cognition: an ability to learn from mistakes, refine methods, collaborate, and create. It’s precisely this adaptability, self-reflection, and co-evolution with our environment that solidifies humanity’s status as Natural General Intelligence.

(3b) Renee’s Rebuttal and Closing Argument (Negative: Humans Do Not Qualify as NGI)

I appreciate the chance to offer this final perspective on why humans, despite their notable cognitive abilities, do not fulfill the criteria for being Natural General Intelligence.

1. Adaptive, Yet Not Unbounded
   Alan paints cultural and technological evolution as evidence of flexible intelligence. While humans do adapt, it is not an unbounded adaptability. Human cognition still relies on iterative cultural learning, extensive training, and tool-building that often moves forward by small increments rather than demonstrating an intrinsic, universal capacity for every domain.

2. Biases Persist Despite Awareness
   Humans’ ability to identify and label biases does not necessarily eliminate them. That we require vast systems of scientific rigor and peer review to guard against cognitive blind spots indicates that, left to individual devices, humans are prone to systematic distortions. Though refinement is possible, this process is neither immediate nor guaranteed. A truly general intelligence would more naturally avoid or outgrow these pitfalls without generational corrections.

3. Tool Reliance as a Sign of Specialized Intelligence
   The fact that humans create tools and platforms for collaboration indeed shows problem-solving skill. However, it also reveals the limitations of individual cognition: humans frequently cannot accomplish certain tasks without external aids or collective knowledge networks. The intelligence that emerges from a group or from an individual-plus-tools arrangement is commendable, but it does not negate the fact that each individual is cognitively bounded.

4. Creativity Within Constraints
   Human creativity is undeniably powerful, yet it remains nested in biologically inherited tendencies and cultural frameworks. Much of the “newness” we see in human output is derivative, shaped by language, tradition, and shared experiences. This mode of creativity can be extraordinary, but it suggests humans operate within a relatively narrow window of conceptual possibilities compared to what a fully generalized system might achieve.

Summation
Ultimately, whether we credit humans for their collaborative achievements or celebrate their creative flair, we must acknowledge the dependence on incremental cultural evolution, external scaffolding, and learned coping mechanisms for cognitive biases. The fact that humans have real limitations—neurobiological, cognitive, and societal—supports the position that they do not exemplify an unqualified, fully generalized intelligence.

Rather than dismissing human abilities, I emphasize these points to clarify that “Natural General Intelligence” should be considered a more expansive, less restricted capacity than what we see in humankind. While humans display many fascinating and potent forms of intelligence, they remain bounded by biology, culture, and social systems, which ultimately disqualifies them from the pure concept of NGI.

Judge’s Evaluation and Decision

After carefully reviewing the arguments presented by both Alan (affirmative) and Renee (negative), here is the summary and final judgment:

1. Scope and Definition of “NGI”

   • Alan frames NGI as robust cognitive adaptability, reflective self-awareness, and the ability to collaborate and innovate across diverse challenges.

   • Renee contends that “fully general intelligence” is far more expansive, encompassing the capacity to function independently of cultural scaffolding, large timescales of training, or the correction of ingrained biases.

2. Strengths of the Affirmative Case

   • Flexibility and Self-Reflection: Alan demonstrates how humans learn from mistakes and employ metacognition, a hallmark of general intelligence.

   • Cultural and Technological Co-evolution: Alan points out that leveraging social and technological frameworks exemplifies humans’ capacity to extend intelligence beyond individual limits.

   • Creativity and Innovation: The ability to produce novel artistic and scientific breakthroughs is presented as a defining feature of generalized cognition.

3. Strengths of the Negative Case

   • Constraints and Biases: Renee persuasively underscores how persistent systemic biases require extensive corrective measures, calling into question whether humans achieve true “generality” in real time.

   • Tool Reliance: Humans often need external aids or collective knowledge networks to tackle large-scale, complex tasks—suggesting that individual human intelligence, on its own, has considerable limits.

   • Incremental vs. Instantaneous Adaptation: Renee emphasizes the slower, iterative nature of human cultural evolution, distinguishing it from a purely general intelligence that could swiftly adapt to radically different contexts.

4. Decision
   Both parties present compelling views. Alan effectively highlights how humans’ cognitive elasticity, capacity for introspection, and collective ingenuity meet many criteria for broad-based intelligence. Renee, however, offers strong counterarguments about humans’ intrinsic limitations and reliance on social and technological systems, challenging whether humans truly exemplify an unbounded, stand-alone “general” intelligence.

Ultimately, in many practical and commonly recognized senses, humans do demonstrate a wide-ranging intelligence marked by creativity, adaptation, and collaborative problem-solving. Alan’s argument that humans qualify as Natural General Intelligence—particularly when one factors in social and cultural dimensions of cognition—edges slightly ahead in this debate, as it aligns with how most theorists conceive “general” intelligence in the real world, acknowledging practical context and the value of communal scaffolding.

Therefore, the judge’s final decision is that the affirmative team (Alan) makes a more persuasive case for classifying humans as Natural General Intelligence, given the inclusive, real-world criteria for what “general intelligence” typically entails.

What The NGI Debate Tells Us

Well, humanity seems to have gotten the thumbs up– just barely.

The case for humanity being intelligent ended up resting heavily on our ability to get things done in practice, rather than on sheer cognitive ability. This is a more practical definition of intelligence than what people often do. It’s the idea that intelligence is not just the ability to think well, but the ability to act well.

More broadly though, I think the biggest thing to note here is that there was no disagreement about what humans are capable of. The debate ended up being entirely about what the definition of NGI should be.

In other words, it was sort of a contest between two people who were each trying to commit their own version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. One of them was trying to paint the target somewhere that humanity would land inside of it; the other was trying to paint the target somewhere else.

Debates around AGI strike me as being much like this. There’s never been a very precise definition of AGI. In theory it means “an AI that can do everything a human can do,” but when you have AI that can do most of what humans can do, can do a lot of other things better, can do some things that humans can’t do at all, but still can’t do a few things that humans can do. The debate ends up being a constant tug-of-war to arbitrarily change the rules about what counts as “true intelligence.”

I don’t know if that means the whole AGI question is pointless. But I do think it’s a mistake to get so hung up on it that it overshadows more specific questions about what AI is capable of and what we can do with it.