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

IQ tests results for AI

trackingai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#131

Post by csa »

nsoonhui wrote: post #31
gpt5 wrote: post #6

The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others - the “positive manifold.” They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. Early tests (e.g., Binet–Simon; later Stanford–Binet and Wechsler) sampled a wide range of tasks, and researchers used correlations and factor analysis to extract the common component, then norm…

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

> Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

Many/most people (esp. young people) are not pushed to the limits of their capacity to learn.

Quality interventions guide people closer to these limits.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#132

Post by torginus »

hemabe wrote: post #72
cedilla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Bell Curve" is, let's say, highly controversial and not a good introduction into the topic. Its claim that genetics are the main predictor of IQ, which was very weakly supported at the time, has been completely and undeniably refuted by science in the thirty years since it's publication.

And yet, in the US, the first start-ups are offering the possibility of testing embryos for their IQ. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/us-startup-c...

> they claimed selecting the “smartest” of 10 embryos would lead to an average IQ gain of more than six points

Ethics aside this sounds like BS - how do you measure the IQ of someone against someone else who was never born?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#133

Post by 010101010101 »

pama wrote: post #111
lukan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the assumption it is true (which I doubt) - there obviously is still value in teaching knowledge, so making students know more and practical skills, not produce more intelligent students. You can have a IQ of over 200, but if no one ever showed you how a computer works or gives you a manual, you still won't be productive with it. But I very much believe, intelligence is improvable and also degradable, just a…

IQ of 200 (or higher) do not exist according to the original definitions of this metric. You need a population of 219 billion or higher to have a 95% chance that a sample exists with 6.66 standard deviations away from the mean (assuming mean of 100 and std of 15). Ofc the tests are of limited value and things can be gamed, but it would be silly to try and identify samples that have no chance of existing.

“Is unlikely to exist” and “does not exist” are two very different statements, but it really doesn’t matter because GP’s point stands if you replace the exaggerated IQ with something reasonable like 160.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#136

Post by ok_computer »

nsoonhui wrote: post #31
gpt5 wrote: post #6

The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others - the “positive manifold.” They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. Early tests (e.g., Binet–Simon; later Stanford–Binet and Wechsler) sampled a wide range of tasks, and researchers used correlations and factor analysis to extract the common component, then norm…

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

Lower and median IQ people still benefit from literacy, numeracy, and art to function in society. The point of education systems isn’t to boost individuals’ dimensionally reduced 1D metrics but rather enrich their lives and contributions to society. There will always be distributions of abilities and means but that doesn’t justify neglecting the bulk of tax paying people.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#137

Post by bearl »

judofyr wrote: post #99
hemabe wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is largely genetic, even if some people claim otherwise. The evidence for this is now overwhelming: even when different ethnic groups grow up in very similar conditions in the same country, the PISA (which correlates r=0.9 with IQ) scores measured vary greatly. For example, among second-generation children in Germany, there are significant differences in PISA scores. Polish children achieve similar or even better…

Your first link (Wikipedia) directly contradicts your examples: > Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis[18][19][20][21]. The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.[22][23][24][25][26][27].

Specifically, as well stated by [23] there is no such thing as “race.” The premise of racial group differences is not possible; we can’t have racial differences if race is not real. Sadly, a lot of people very much believe in race, especially the ones that shouldn’t!

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#138

Post by csa »

pama wrote: post #111
lukan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the assumption it is true (which I doubt) - there obviously is still value in teaching knowledge, so making students know more and practical skills, not produce more intelligent students. You can have a IQ of over 200, but if no one ever showed you how a computer works or gives you a manual, you still won't be productive with it. But I very much believe, intelligence is improvable and also degradable, just a…

IQ of 200 (or higher) do not exist according to the original definitions of this metric. You need a population of 219 billion or higher to have a 95% chance that a sample exists with 6.66 standard deviations away from the mean (assuming mean of 100 and std of 15). Ofc the tests are of limited value and things can be gamed, but it would be silly to try and identify samples that have no chance of existing.

> IQ of 200 (or higher) do not exist according to the original definitions of this metric

Just to expand in this point…

Most IQ tests for adults lose a lot of precision over 130 (2sd), and they are extremely imprecise over 145 (3sd) — almost to the point that a scores over 145 should simply be labeled 145+.

When I did a deep dive into the IQ test literature 20 years ago, the most reliable correlated predictors for 145+ were standardized tests like the GRE. That said, standardized tests like these have high specificity and (relatively) low sensitivity — that is, very few false positives and many false negatives.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#139

Post by jacquesm »

ok_computer wrote: post #136
nsoonhui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

Lower and median IQ people still benefit from literacy, numeracy, and art to function in society. The point of education systems isn’t to boost individuals’ dimensionally reduced 1D metrics but rather enrich their lives and contributions to society. There will always be distributions of abilities and means but that doesn’t justify neglecting the bulk of tax paying people.

It used to be that society worked just fine with people of all grades of smarts. But we're rapidly getting to the point that to be able to earn a living wage you need to be above average, especially if you are sole income provider for a while. AI is further steepening that S curve's mid-section.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#140

Post by robwwilliams »

nsoonhui wrote: post #31
gpt5 wrote: post #6

The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others - the “positive manifold.” They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. Early tests (e.g., Binet–Simon; later Stanford–Binet and Wechsler) sampled a wide range of tasks, and researchers used correlations and factor analysis to extract the common component, then norm…

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

Human IQ has been going up at a very fast rate for the last 100 years. Kids tested by the Army being enlisted for WW1 who had a mean score of 100(by definition) in 1917 now would have a mean score of lss than 80. Tons of interesting work on why IQ is shooting up, but it definitely is NOT genetics.

This is known as the Flynn effect. Here is the wikipedia entry in case you want more details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Video games like Civilization and Myst etc, probably add 5 to 10 IQ points to kids. My 9 year old knew all about Greek triremes. Me: What the heck is a trireme?

Most if what people call “genetic effects” are actually “genetic-by-environment” interaction effects. Chane the environment and you change the APPARENT heritability. Good example is the genetics of substance use disorders which range from 30 to 60%—-but IF AND ONLY IF there are drugs around to which you are exposed in YOUR environment.?

Same applies to good and bad schools.

Post reply on HN