> any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion...would be able to reach all of those levels

For these purposes they are highly reliable (repeatable, internally consistent) and valid (correlate with ~everything to about the degree one would reasonably expect).

They were never designed for machines or non-human animals.

Nor were they designed for rare ranges of intelligence - these are by definition hard to create tests for, since it's hard to gather the sample sizes you need. So they work well for the middle ~98% of humans but can't discriminate well among the most profoundly intellectually disabled nor among true geniuses.

But that list is extremely ambitious. Write a best seller, make a popular game, come up with a truly novel theory, consistently outtrade index funds.

That's top 0.001% human stuff, I don't think you can take just any person and get there through education alone, it takes extreme talent and dedication. There's also diminishing returns when spending on education, it doesn't just improve linearly.

My personal bet would be the country would suffer for it quite a lot, similar to places that have banned e.g. loans, but it'd be very cool if I were wrong!

My experience with performance adtech was that 95% of the energy went into targeting whales, with a focus on products that drive massive revenue (mobile gaming, gambling, crypto). It's truly insane what these whales are spending.

Sure, there's still a lot of money in the 5%, especially for a surface like ChatGPT where people are making retail decisions. But I'm not particularly shocked if they're a little behind.