Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#2Surprised I haven’t come across this analogy before. Thinking about it now, ‘Animal-like abilities’ is a much better analogy in the context of the general public. It also helps ground scientists in thinking deeply about the difference between human and animal intelligence (some animals can use tools).
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#3Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#4Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing, but it seems pretty absurd to claim that there's no general factor at all. Could it really be meaningless to say that someone's smart?
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#5Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
Trollish comment above but I do wonder about this. I always hear people who think ‘g’ is bullshit giving some form of this argument:
“AI can’t even x, how would you expect it to ever possibly do y?”
It’s like saying:
“How could a baby, which can not even tie its own shoes, spell a simple word, or fill a cup with water, ever possibly grow up to write a book, manage a corporation, or formulate a strategy for fighting a war? Impossible!”
It’s almost as if they think babies can’t learn. The AI is not a baby though, they say. Yeah, it’s not. But it’s a constantly learning body of work that is not regressing and not slowing down. Why would it not get to ‘general’ eventually?
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#6Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing, but it seems pretty absurd to claim that there's no general factor at all. Could it really be meaningless to say that someone's smart?
It's like saying a car is fast. Sure, the car is fast. Is it also reliable, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, or affordable? How does it handle? How does it do off-road? Can it fly? Can it operate underwater?
Real world fitness landscapes are complex and multidimensional.
My comment was a little snarky because while I like this site quite a bit for many reasons I do get a little fatigued by the prevalence of the IQ cult. The notion that there is a single metric on which brains can be sorted is sort of a sacred dogma around here, and one which to me is obviously quite wrong. All it takes is a casual glance at intelligence as it actually manifests in the only real world example of an intelligent system we have: biology. It's clearly a multidimensional quality that can be optimized for a large range of things just like anything else.
If intelligence is multidimensional in all other living things, by what rationale would we conclude that human intelligence is one-dimensional?
... or ...
If virtually every engineered or evolved capability is subject to multi-dimensional optimization, then why not also intelligence?
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#7Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
It’s not bullshit to notice that a bunch of different abilities tend to be highly correlated. That’s all g is.
What is bullshit is the formal theory of multiple intelligences, which is largely PC-inspired pseudoscience and does not account for the correlation between separate areas.
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing, but it seems pretty absurd to claim that there's no general factor at all. Could it really be meaningless to say that someone's smart?
It's like saying a car is fast. Sure, the car is fast. Is it also reliable, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, or affordable? How does it handle? How does it do off-road? Can it fly? Can it operate underwater? Real world fitness landscapes are complex and multidimensional. My comment was a little snarky because while I like this site quite a bit for many reasons I do get a little fatigued by the prevalen…
Absolutely true, but I'm not sure that's really a point of confusion. Almost everyone would agree that smart people aren't automatically good at athletics, or poetry, or woodworking. If you've seen people say that kind of thing I agree they're being silly.
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#9Careful... you're on the verge here of realizing that intelligence is not a single-dimensional thing and that 'g' is bullshit.
It’s not bullshit to notice that a bunch of different abilities tend to be highly correlated. That’s all g is. What is bullshit is the formal theory of multiple intelligences, which is largely PC-inspired pseudoscience and does not account for the correlation between separate areas.
Athletic ability (real time kinetic intelligence) and math ability are highly correlated?
A car's speed and its ability to drive off-road are highly correlated?
Rocket thrust and specific impulse are highly correlated? (Hint: these are inversely correlated.)
I didn't come to this through PC. I came to it through a basic understanding of learning and optimization.
Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing, but it seems pretty absurd to claim that there's no general factor at all. Could it really be meaningless to say that someone's smart?
It's like saying a car is fast. Sure, the car is fast. Is it also reliable, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, or affordable? How does it handle? How does it do off-road? Can it fly? Can it operate underwater? Real world fitness landscapes are complex and multidimensional. My comment was a little snarky because while I like this site quite a bit for many reasons I do get a little fatigued by the prevalen…
Yet we have a bunch of general attributes we expect when we say "car". Maybe "she's smart" is rather like "she has a car". You don't know whether it's a Porsche or a Truck, gas or electric, but you'll generally rely on her being able to cover larger distances than on foot, and at higher speeds, while also hauling some reasonable amount of luggage.