Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#21

Post by chongli »

est31 wrote: post #18
api wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's all there is to it. I think that's the main point where we disagree. I think there's a hell of a lot more to it. I remember noticing when I was in school that while I could learn a variety of things, there were definitely subjects that were a lot easier for me and others in which I'd struggle no matter how hard I worked. I also observed other people with very different profiles of easy and hard subjects. I b…

Yeah I think the notion of a scalar intelligence metric won't stand the test of time. Some people are born with golden hands and excel at everything they touch while others are over-achievers in narrow subjects only. Just think what a scalar intelligence concept would mean: there is only one single gene that gives rise to all of the variance in intelligence among humans. This can't be it, there are likely dozens if n…

Even if you say that intelligence is a vector, well, vectors have norms. The perception I'm trying to counter here is that intelligence involves tradeoffs which somehow result in a fair outcome for all. That Bobby's writing ability is offset by Billy's chess-playing. That's not the case at all.

Take someone like John Von Neumann. One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century (and perhaps all time), he could also converse in a multitude of languages (native Hungarian, English, French, German, Italian, Ancient Greek). He was also an avid history buff, reading through Wilhelm Oncken's 46-volume Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen at the age of 8 [1].

Later, he studied and became a chemical engineer while at the same time studying for his Ph.D in mathematics at the age of 20!

there is only one single gene that gives rise to all of the variance in intelligence among humans.

This does not follow. The claim is that some brains are better at learning than others. This means they can model and describe the complex relationship between ideas across a multitude of subject domains. It doesn't say anything about a single gene being responsible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Child_prodigy

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#22

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

chongli wrote: post #16
api wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Athletic ability isn't intelligence. Intelligence may be a part of it (c.f. Wayne Gretzky's quote "skate to where the puck is going, not where it's been") but strength, speed, and stamina aren't. Burmese pythons are way stronger than humans yet I doubt anyone would call them more intelligent. Mantis shrimp have way faster reflexes and their vision is way more sophisticated than ours yet they're not more intelligent a…

At school with me were 2 guys who were not that academic but they were natural sportsmen. They had something very evidently we didn't, and it's hard to put a finger on it. One became a semi-pro fooballer (football, UK). Their competence on the pitch or elsewhere was extraordinary.

Whatever that special thing is, once you see it in action you realise it's a genuine facet of something. You may not want to call it an intelligence, but I'm ok with doing so. It wasn't a physical thing, they weren't physically special, ergo it was a mental thing. "Intelligence" covers that quite well, I think.

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#23

Post by chongli »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #20
chongli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd prefer you didn't call it bullshit without some backup.

The theory of multiple intelligences is the work of Howard Gardner [1]. The core of Gardner's thesis is that there are weak correlations between these different abilities. Research shows the opposite: there are strong correlations between them [2]. This indicates that there is an underlying meta-ability that explains all of these different abilities. This meta-ability is usually called g and it's tested with IQ tests.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#24

Post by nitrogen »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #22
chongli wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Athletic ability isn't intelligence. Intelligence may be a part of it (c.f. Wayne Gretzky's quote "skate to where the puck is going, not where it's been") but strength, speed, and stamina aren't. Burmese pythons are way stronger than humans yet I doubt anyone would call them more intelligent. Mantis shrimp have way faster reflexes and their vision is way more sophisticated than ours yet they're not more intelligent a…

At school with me were 2 guys who were not that academic but they were natural sportsmen. They had something very evidently we didn't, and it's hard to put a finger on it. One became a semi-pro fooballer (football, UK). Their competence on the pitch or elsewhere was extraordinary. Whatever that special thing is, once you see it in action you realise it's a genuine facet of something. You may not want to call it an in…

I think the distinction being drawn by other commenters is that this physical learning ability is impressive and desirable, but not generally applicable to arbitrary problems to the same degree as whatever "g" might be.

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#25

Post by TeMPOraL »

op03 wrote: post #15

Ant level intelligence I'd be happy with. "Colony you may now clean up my kitchen table and do the dishes. Thanks"

And then you keep thinking about how fast cereal is disappearing in your house, wondering whether you're just so sleepy in the morning you don't remember eating more and more of it - until one night you spot a string of AInts stealing your cereal, piece by piece. By the time you've realized your mistake, the colony has grown 100x in size and already spread to the two neighboring houses, being held back by the front line of an ongoing war with an AInt colony of your friend one street down.

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#26

Post by es7 »

est31 wrote: post #18
api wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's all there is to it. I think that's the main point where we disagree. I think there's a hell of a lot more to it. I remember noticing when I was in school that while I could learn a variety of things, there were definitely subjects that were a lot easier for me and others in which I'd struggle no matter how hard I worked. I also observed other people with very different profiles of easy and hard subjects. I b…

Yeah I think the notion of a scalar intelligence metric won't stand the test of time. Some people are born with golden hands and excel at everything they touch while others are over-achievers in narrow subjects only. Just think what a scalar intelligence concept would mean: there is only one single gene that gives rise to all of the variance in intelligence among humans. This can't be it, there are likely dozens if n…

That's quite a strawman argument.

'g' is a scalar that tries to measure the relatively large chunk of correlation that tends to show up on aptitude tests.

On average, individuals who do well on one type of intellectual task tend to do well on most other types of intellectual tasks. Maybe someone is good at all forms of pattern recognition but just can't manage 3d-rotation tasks. It happens.

So an IQ test isn't perfect. There isn't one true value that exists in the world that is 'g'. Many tests now break out 'verbal' and 'mathematical' IQ, but I suspect even those have a correlation > 0.5

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#27

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

nitrogen wrote: post #24
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At school with me were 2 guys who were not that academic but they were natural sportsmen. They had something very evidently we didn't, and it's hard to put a finger on it. One became a semi-pro fooballer (football, UK). Their competence on the pitch or elsewhere was extraordinary. Whatever that special thing is, once you see it in action you realise it's a genuine facet of something. You may not want to call it an in…

I think the distinction being drawn by other commenters is that this physical learning ability is impressive and desirable, but not generally applicable to arbitrary problems to the same degree as whatever "g" might be.

ISWYM but I did carefully call it "an intelligence". I strongly agree what you say about it not being like, or obviously related to, or an aspect of, general intelligence, but I'm happy to call it 'an' intelligence. There's a risk you're defining something out of existence so as not to encroach on an existing definition. Or maybe you're right. This isn't my field.

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#28

Post by 29athrowaway »

op03 wrote: post #15

Ant level intelligence I'd be happy with. "Colony you may now clean up my kitchen table and do the dishes. Thanks"

Ant swarm intelligence is not perfect.

Sometimes they fall into infinite loops killing the entire colony: Ant death spirals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0HoqjxfvJ4

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#29

Post by api »

chongli wrote: post #23
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer you didn't call it bullshit without some backup.

The theory of multiple intelligences is the work of Howard Gardner [1]. The core of Gardner's thesis is that there are weak correlations between these different abilities. Research shows the opposite: there are strong correlations between them [2]. This indicates that there is an underlying meta-ability that explains all of these different abilities. This meta-ability is usually called g and it's tested with IQ tests…

> This indicates that there is an underlying meta-ability that explains all of these different abilities.

It suggests that such a meta-ability might exist, but doesn't prove anything. It's also possible that these abilities are discrete but are correlated because they're subject to selection as a package... sort of like how physical coordination and endurance are probably selected for at the same time.

In any case the existence of such a meta-ability doesn't mean intelligence is one dimensional unless you re-define intelligence so as to exclude everything that can't be tied to that ability.

Re: Human-Level Intelligence or Animal-Like Abilities? (2018)

#30

Post by chongli »

api wrote: post #29
chongli wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory of multiple intelligences is the work of Howard Gardner [1]. The core of Gardner's thesis is that there are weak correlations between these different abilities. Research shows the opposite: there are strong correlations between them [2]. This indicates that there is an underlying meta-ability that explains all of these different abilities. This meta-ability is usually called g and it's tested with IQ tests…

> This indicates that there is an underlying meta-ability that explains all of these different abilities. It suggests that such a meta-ability might exist, but doesn't prove anything. It's also possible that these abilities are discrete but are correlated because they're subject to selection as a package... sort of like how physical coordination and endurance are probably selected for at the same time. In any case th…

It's also possible that these abilities are discrete but are correlated because they're subject to selection as a package

It is also possible, but there's no evidence for it. There's no evidence for any of Gardner's work. The biggest criticism of his work is that there's no empirical basis for the classification of his "intelligences." Gardner even admits to this, saying the choices are the work of an "artistic judgment" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...

Post reply on HN