The longer answer I would give is: It depends on a lot of things such as how much smarter you might be compared to those around you, how frequent any differences may be demonstrated, and how, if at all, said differences improve over a period of time.
The short answer is: it ranges between tedious and infuriating.
And now for the sperg of text. When others can't do things that you find easy enough to be trivial it brings up questions why it's so difficult for them as well as why they can't improve, even when you already know the answer which is: everyone is different and has different capabilities.
Being able to look at a puzzle, or a mix of letters, or some other potential pattern and "just get it" is as pointed out elsewhere in the comments just a trait. It's how someone is and how they interpret and respond to stimuli. But when you then add various context to that situation it can go from solving a puzzle in seconds just because you can, to being told everyone else has spent the last 15 minutes trying to solve it and failing. Thus creating the comparison. You're not just "smart" at this point for solving the problem, you're now also "smarter" then others which leads to various issues from both sides of the comparison.
Frustration at others inability to do what you can and/or consider trivial will lead to resentment which can in turn lead to distancing and isolation. This can also come about by others feeling intimidated or put off just how much someone outshines everyone else and more so when it's clear through less effort than everyone else needs to put in. Even though it may be known it's not intentional or malicious behaviour the result is still the same, and there is very little that can be done to solve it.
a 140 IQ person with an LLM can have many times more value output over 100x 120 IQ people with LLMs and 10,000x more output over 100x 100 IQ people with LLMs.
First, 120 is usually just past the pretentious halfwit range. Ignoring machine learning, the only reason this would be true is the difficulty and cost of managing increasing amounts of people. Assuming that there's acceptable leadership, it's better to have 10 people ranging from 140-105 IQ with diverse backgrounds (not the intersectional type) than three 145s of similar background. The Wisdom of Crowds book cites at least 1 study showcasing how important it is for a team strategy to not have blind spots resulting from groupthink.
A rockstar is still capable of unique invention, so 1+ genius shouldn't be discarded if possible.
VIs only benefit is lessening the burden of less virtuous or misaligned individuals on the more productive. The homogeneity they output reminds me of the Irish potato famine, however British oppression plays into it. Certainly not gauranteeing 1 borderline genius to out profit 100 borderline smarts working g together.
The longer answer I would give is: It depends on a lot of things such as how much smarter you might be compared to those around you, how frequent any differences may be demonstrated, and how, if at all, said differences improve over a period of time.
The short answer is: it ranges between tedious and infuriating.
And now for the sperg of text. When others can't do things that you find easy enough to be trivial it brings up questions why it's so difficult for them as well as why they can't improve, even when you already know the answer which is: everyone is different and has different capabilities.
Being able to look at a puzzle, or a mix of letters, or some other potential pattern and "just get it" is as pointed out elsewhere in the comments just a trait. It's how someone is and how they interpret and respond to stimuli. But when you then add various context to that situation it can go from solving a puzzle in seconds just because you can, to being told everyone else has spent the last 15 minutes trying to solve it and failing. Thus creating the comparison. You're not just "smart" at this point for solving the problem, you're now also "smarter" then others which leads to various issues from both sides of the comparison.
Frustration at others inability to do what you can and/or consider trivial will lead to resentment which can in turn lead to distancing and isolation. This can also come about by others feeling intimidated or put off just how much someone outshines everyone else and more so when it's clear through less effort than everyone else needs to put in. Even though it may be known it's not intentional or malicious behaviour the result is still the same, and there is very little that can be done to solve it.
Preach.
First, 120 is usually just past the pretentious halfwit range. Ignoring machine learning, the only reason this would be true is the difficulty and cost of managing increasing amounts of people. Assuming that there's acceptable leadership, it's better to have 10 people ranging from 140-105 IQ with diverse backgrounds (not the intersectional type) than three 145s of similar background. The Wisdom of Crowds book cites at least 1 study showcasing how important it is for a team strategy to not have blind spots resulting from groupthink.
A rockstar is still capable of unique invention, so 1+ genius shouldn't be discarded if possible.
VIs only benefit is lessening the burden of less virtuous or misaligned individuals on the more productive. The homogeneity they output reminds me of the Irish potato famine, however British oppression plays into it. Certainly not gauranteeing 1 borderline genius to out profit 100 borderline smarts working g together.
Hey, we could easily be all three!