[Definitive Guide] Has GPT-5 Surpassed Human Intelligence? Strengths, Weaknesses, and Practical Impacts (August 2025 Edition)

Key Takeaways (Inverted Pyramid Style)

• Conclusion: GPT-5 shows human-top-tier scores in narrow, standardized tasks like math, coding, and multimodal understanding, but has not yet surpassed human-level intelligence in areas like long-term problem setting, autonomous research, and extended strategic reasoning. This view is supported by OpenAI’s system card, third-party analyses, and statements from Sam Altman.
• Strengths (Benchmark Highlights): AIME 2025: 94.6% (no tools), SWE-bench Verified: 74.9%, Aider Polyglot: 88%, MMMU: 84.2%, HealthBench Hard: 46.2%. GPT-5 Pro sets a new SOTA in GPQA: 88.4% (no tools).
• Weaknesses: GPT-5 underperforms in self-improvement and long-term project execution. On MLE-Bench (Kaggle-style 24h task), it scores only 9%, failing to meet the “high” threshold.
• Safety & Operations: GPT-5 shifts from “hard refusals” to safe completions, reducing factual error rate by ~45% vs 4o, and ~80% vs o3 in “thinking mode”. However, bio/chem domains trigger preventive safeguards due to high capabilities.
• Summary: GPT-5 has not reached broad human-level intelligence, but clearly achieves superhuman performance in specific tasks and serves as a practical productivity booster in core enterprise workflows (coding, analysis, knowledge work).

1｜What Is GPT-5? A Router-Based System of Models and Thinking Modes

GPT-5 is not a single model, but a composite system composed of:

• gpt-5-main (fast general model)
• gpt-5-thinking (deep reasoning model)
• A router that selects the optimal model in real time based on conversation type, complexity, tool usage, and user prompts like “think hard”.

When resource limits are reached, the system falls back to mini versions. The API allows direct access to thinking variants (mini/nano).
ChatGPT offers a “thinking-enhanced” GPT-5 Pro for more complex reasoning.

GPT-5 also introduces a paradigm shift in safety training from “refusal-focused” to “completion-focused”, allowing for useful, bounded outputs even in dual-use domains.

Key Point: Instead of users choosing a model, the focus shifts to expressing intent (e.g., think hard about this), letting the router handle backend decisions.

2｜Where GPT-5 Excels: Benchmarks That Show Human-Level or Higher

Based on OpenAI’s disclosures (as of August 7, 2025), GPT-5 delivers significant improvements on standardized benchmark tasks, especially in math, coding, and multimodal comprehension:

• Math (AIME 2025): 94.6% (no tools) — demonstrates top-tier performance in calculation + short-term reasoning.
• Coding (SWE-bench Verified): 74.9% — excels in real-world tasks involving bug fixes + test pass, offering clear industrial value.
• Aider Polyglot: 88% — strong code generation/editing across languages and platforms.
• MMMU (Multimodal): 84.2% — progress in combining image and text comprehension.
• HealthBench Hard: 46.2% — significant improvement over predecessors in realistic medical scenarios (not a replacement for professionals).
• GPQA (GPT-5 Pro): 88.4% (no tools) — new SOTA in graduate-level science Q&A.

GPT-5 also shows notable reduction in factual hallucinations, with ~45% drop vs GPT-4o, and ~80% vs GPT-4o3 in thinking mode, especially in realistic, web-sourced prompts.

Benchmarking Tips for Real Use

1. Pay attention to “with/without tools” test conditions.
2. Some tasks are sensitive to verbosity (token length) — log these when comparing results internally.

3｜Where GPT-5 Falls Short: Strategy, Autonomy, and Self-Improvement

GPT-5 struggles in long-term strategic thinking, problem setting, and autonomous project execution, which are higher-level aspects of human intelligence.
OpenAI’s system card explicitly states that GPT-5 fails to meet “high” thresholds in multiple AI self-improvement evaluations.

For example, on MLE-Bench (a 24h Kaggle-like task), GPT-5 scores just 9%. Evaluations like SWE-Lancer, PaperBench, OPQA also reflect only incremental progress.

Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO) has affirmed that GPT-5 is still below human capabilities in long-horizon reasoning, strategic planning, and critical problem discovery — even though it shows superhuman pattern recognition and recall in short tasks.

External commentators also describe GPT-5 as an incremental upgrade, with gaps in tone, creative surprise, and intuitive judgment. The contrast between “strong in execution” vs “weak in experience” often reflects a mismatch between product strategy and user expectations.

In terms of safety, OpenAI classifies bio/chem domains as “high capability” and applies multi-layered safeguards. Independent evaluation by METR concludes that GPT-5 lacks the prerequisite capabilities for catastrophic misuse, indicating it’s far from a fully autonomous AGI.

4｜Redefining “Superhuman”: Parsing the Claims

To avoid misunderstanding, let’s break down “superhuman” into three levels:

1. Task-level Superhuman: Excels in narrow, well-defined tasks (e.g., math problems, code fixes).

   • ✅ Achieved: GPT-5 hits SOTA in AIME, SWE-bench, MMMU, GPQA, etc.

2. Occupational Superhuman: Handles end-to-end workflows (e.g., from spec to testing).

   • 🟡 Partially Achieved: GPT-5 has improved in tool use and long-form execution, but still struggles with long-term consistency.

3. General Intelligence Superhuman: Involves value judgment, problem framing, ethics, strategy.

   • ❌ Not Achieved: Long-term, strategic, and ethical reasoning still fall short.

Thus, GPT-5 hasn’t achieved “broad superhuman intelligence”, but has reached “superhuman performance in narrow tasks.”

(Continues with sections 5–12 in the same detailed style…)

Let me know if you’d like the rest of the translation now or prefer a downloadable full version.