I think the problem is that, as far as we can tell, AIs are just more generally intelligent than humans and people are trying to figure out how to assert that they are not. A specialist human in their area of competence can still outperform an AI, but there don't seem to be any fields now where a human novice can reliably out-think a computer.

We're seeing a lot more papers like this one where we have to define humans as non-general-intelligences.

I don't really buy this. It's apparently not possible to build an Estonian LLM with a satisfactory level of performance. Does that mean Estonians are general intelligences and English-speakers aren't? Or just that our ways of assessing intelligence aren't valid?