Or (and hear me out), they are close to an IPO and want to ensure that there is a world-ending threat around which they can cluster the biggest names, with themselves leading that group.

I think I just broke my cynicism meter :-(

> No idea. Why do we need to determine if humans are getting dumber or not?

It seems to me, then, that your primary objection is not that IQ scores are inaccurate, but that intelligence shouldn't be measured in the first place?

Which makes me think that you don't want anyone doing research into whether human intelligence is changing at all.

> Imho IQ scores aren’t a sufficient measure of intelligence, it’s very shaky science at best

What do you propose as a replacement metric to determine if humans are getting dumber or not?

> I am aware of that - I was adding something along the lines of: I don’t think people care if we deliver Alices any more.

That's irrelevant to the goal of the program - they care. Once they stop caring, they'd shut that program down.

Maybe it would be replaced with a new program that has the goal of delivering Bobs+AI, but what would be the point? I mean, the article explained in depth that there is no market for the results currently, so what would be the point of efficiently generating those results?

The market currently does not want the results, so replacing the current program with something that produces Bobs+AI would be for... what, exactly?

> The thing is, agents aren’t going away. So if Bob can do things with agents, he can do things.

"Being able to deliver using AI" wasn't the point of the article. If it was the point, your comment would make sense.

The point of the program referred to in the article is not to deliver results, but to deliver an Alice. Delivering a Bob is a failure of the program.

Whether you think that a Bob+AI delivers the same results is not relevant to the point of the article, because the goal is not to deliver the results, it's to deliver an Alice.