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

161–170 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#161

Post by togetheragainor »

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].

Is this the consensus because it’s true, or because anybody who suggests otherwise is pilloried and driven out of academia?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#162

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#163

Post by delichon »

bearl wrote: post #137
judofyr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I've been told that there's no such thing as a circle because there's no such thing as a perfect circle. The claim that race does not exist seems to be in that category.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#164

Post by PaulHoule »

erikerikson wrote: post #153
technothrasher wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others My son took an IQ test and it wouldn't score him because he breaks this assumption. He was getting 98% in some tasks and 2% in others. The psychologist giving him the test said it was unlikely enough pattern that they couldn't get an IQ result for him. He's been diagnosed with non-verbal l…

A term of use for your son is twice exceptional. The GP is correct about the theoretical basis of the tests. Note the use of "tend" in the quote. Even those who fit that better tend to have differential strengths so that has shown to be too simple. Over time the models of intelligence have complected adding EQ (emotional quotient), SQ (social q...), and so on but IQ was first, continues to be considered useful in som…

I've maxxed out any test or subscale of verbal intelligence that I've taken since I was 12 or so but my schizotaxic brain glitches enough that my problem solving ability in test environments is a bit degraded, still at least an SD above average, but enough that I get an IQ test score that is just high and not off the charts.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#165

Post by robwwilliams »

hemabe wrote: post #73
brabel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

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…

You do understand that these estimates of heritability depend of a relatively stable estimate of the environmental variance. If environment variance goes up heritability goes down.

Sure, genetic variants modulate (not “Determine”) an IQ score and reaction times etc. But this does NOT mean IQ scores are unmalleable by environmental factors.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#166

Post by cakealert »

robwwilliams wrote: post #156
alphazard wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misleading. Anyone who wants to learn about IQ should Google it. It's the most replicated finding in psychology, and any questions you have about twins or groups with similar or different genes have probably been investigated. There is a lot of noise online in the form of commentary about IQ, so it's important to look at actual data if you are skeptical/curious.

Not sure what you mean precisely. Yes lots if work in IQ, but that does not mean there is a grand consensus. I am a geneticist who studies cognitive function. The single most common misunderstanding about estimates of heritability is that a high heritability implies full genetic causation without potential malleability. That is total wrong. Heritability is always measured in the context of Environment X. If you chang…

Unfortunately most of the malleability is non-systematic (can't be engineered by a third party). Which means it's caused by the nonlinear dynamics between the genes and environment.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#167

Post by pama »

010101010101 wrote: post #133
pama wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK. The more precise statement is that when the test was created you would have had about 99.3% to 99.42% chance that such a sample did not exist if you were to test all the population this test was designed for (depending on population statistics of the time that are a bit unclear).

To be clear, I do not endorse the validity of these tests or their interpretation at any level. Learning to be a lifelong learner can take almost anyone a really long way. The analogy to neural nets is that bigger nets dont always make a better model after a point and every human starts at a very priviledged/huge network capacity.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#168

Post by ok_computer »

jacquesm wrote: post #139
ok_computer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that has more to do with our willingness or ability to value labor in a highly abstracted overseas and automated economy. In addition, there has been a complete disconnect between $1USD purchasing power and generation ability based on capital scale. I don't know what financial crisis or tax policy or free trade agreement or visa program that stems from.

I think that in the knowledge worker class, people tend to confuse their learned skills and inherited starting point to their innate abilities. Illusory superiority is best mocked in prairie home companion's Lake Woebegone, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are all above average" [0].

Give kids a stable home environment with loving supportive parents, three square meals a day, 9+ hours of sleep and opportunity to pursue their creative or sports interests and you'll have a class of highly functioning humans of different abilities.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The%20Lake%20Wobe...

It does feel like a squeeze just functioning in the current job, housing, and grocery market though. I cannot imagine the stress of being a sole provider. My point is to not conflate genetic superiority to the multitude of factors that go in to making a talented skillful worker, where I think nurture cannot be discounted.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#169

Post by notahacker »

kcplate wrote: post #116
notahacker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Workers rejoice as model overfitted to score 170 on IQ test turns out to be incapable of performing basic tasks..."

There are a lot of people with high IQs that appear to be incapable of performing basic tasks too

Well yeah, I'd be wary of an "all our candidates are MENSA members" staffing agency as well :). But human intelligence isn't quite so easily overfitted to a training set consisting of multiple choice matrices and logic puzzles as neural networks

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#170

Post by robwwilliams »

bearl wrote: post #137
judofyr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Geneticist use the word “ancestry” to refer to summarize the historical geographic origins of genetic variants that we are inherit. Ancestry can be reliably estimated by genome analysis.

Race, like the gender, is now considered a social construct.

The meanings of words are defined by a community of users who find them useful in communicating. Race and ancestry are both useful words.

Post reply on HN