I ran into this AI-SE question from 5 years ago and I believe that an updated version could be interesting to discuss nowadays: Is the smartest robot more clever than the stupidest human?
Today's best LLMs are displaying a lot of human-like abilities: proficiency in natural languages, ability to code, logical reasoning, role playing and so on. They can even solve CAPTCHAs, design games, answer questions about stories or write new ones: these were the "shortcomings of robots" in 2018, according to the answers to the question I linked.
How do the best LLMs of today compare to a "dumb human"? In what tasks are all normal humans still better than AIs? Is there any test that every able-bodied human would pass, but top LLMs would still fail?
Definitions and clarifications
A "dumb human" is a person without recognized disabilities or obvious problems, who doesn't have particular skills and who is considered not very intelligent (low IQ).
Of course the LLMs available to the public have a number of objective limitations: they can only process text-to-text, they work with tokens rather than characters, context length is just few kilo-tokens, and they have no long-term memory. However a number of open source projects have shown various solutions to these problems, and the non-public version of the commercial LLMs already support much larger context windows, image input and similar features. Observations like "LLMs can't move arms as they don't have it", "LLMs fail to count characters because they're token based", "LLMs can't speak nor listen to speech" are not interesting.