While your point is true, I&#x27;m not sure it is relevant to measuring intelligence. The human has two advantages in this situation: First off, all humans have agency: they can take action to do things. If you want the comparison to be remotely fair you need to compare a program that has agency to see the same stimuli as the human would and have access to the same range of actions. Not a particularly difficult programming task.<p>If you put an untrained system and an average person in the crashing plane situation, the average person is probably going to do better, but it&#x27;s because your average person &#x2F;has&#x2F; some training in what to do in this situation. They&#x27;ve been exposed to enough culture to know that the joystick is the main way of controlling the plane and that planes moving towards the ground at steep angles are likely to be bad, and probably know generally what action to take that might help the situation.<p>Fair comparisons would be say, an untrained program vs a baby, or a system trained with some general knowledge of vehicle control vs an average person. I&#x27;m not really sure that humans win out in either of those comparisons.