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

171–180 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#171

Post by whatshisface »

technothrasher wrote: post #117
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…

> 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 rule whose exceptions are one in a hundred fails for three million Americans.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#172

Post by cluckindan »

api wrote: post #155
jdietrich wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

G is (largely) immutable, but knowledge and skills are not. The economy is not zero-sum and we all benefit from increasing the total amount of human capital. Unfortunately, thinking around education is dominated by people who wrongly believe that the economy is zero-sum.

Throughout 99% of human history, the economy was mostly zero sum. If someone was rich it was because they stole it. If a group was wealthier it was because they stole it. By "stole it" I'm including theft of labor through slavery as well as the usual conquests and raiding. There was little to no innovation over time spans as long as thousands of years. Most of human culture and philosophy evolved during these periods…

I would hazard a guess that a lot of the so-called wealth is not actual, directly owned material wealth, but immaterial numbers: indirect, abstract proof of ownership — in Baudrillard jargon, simulacra of ownership. Numbers, which, due to their illiquid nature and their disconnect from material ownership, cannot be instantly and fully redeemed without sacrificing most of their purported value.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#173

Post by whatshisface »

nradov wrote: post #149
torginus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It's at least mostly BS. Researchers have found certain genes which have a weak statistical correlation with high IQ but the mechanism of action is unknown. And it's not an additive thing: the interactions and relationships between individual genes must play some role but that has barely been studied at all. There's no guarantee that an embryo with those genes will grow up to be intelligent, or that they won't have o…

One of the dark comedies playing out in the world right now is that if random physical features are correlated with IQ testing due to co-heritability, users of IVF selection will be imprinting them on their own kids.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#174

Post by [deleted] »

robwwilliams wrote: post #160
brabel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The simple answer that is usually right: “A god-awful complex mixture of genetic variation, stochastic variation during development, and innumerable environmental influences, all interacting in a big recursive hairball.” I hope that satisfies everyone ;-)

[deleted]

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#175

Post by mythrwy »

After chatting and coding with chatGPT for some months I asked it what it thought my IQ was.

After spitting out some disclaimers, it gave a 5 point range that nailed what my IQ has been professionally tested at. I found this very interesting and a bit alarming.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#176

Post by sejje »

d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #71

Human beings' IQ test results can vary significantly based on how much money is in their pockets. For example, if a farmer takes an IQ test before crops are harvested and sold they score lower than after crops are sold, in the same year. It seems fairly obvious to me that an LLM is the projection intelligence in the language domain. In other words, if you killed Intelligence and gave it a push in direction of languag…

What did your disclosure add to your point? They seem totally detached, the later being a brag.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#177

Post by robwwilliams »

froh wrote: post #91
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…

especially Germany is a very poor example for this claim as school performance (PISA) in this country correlates with the parents academic background more than anything. if your parents aren't educated you can be intelligent AF and still will fail the German school system while you can be dumb as a brick but still make Abitur if your parents drill you through. in Germany. and Welt is a media source with a right conse…

Yes. The smartest kid in my elementary school in Blankenese, Hamburg, Germany (a filthy-rich neighborhood) was an asthmatic son of the stable master of Alex Springer. By far the smartest kid.

But he did NOT go to gymnasium. He was my best friend and I was furious at this social injustice. I was 10 and this was my first exposure to rigid class injustice. It still makes me mad. All of the other dumb rich kids from Blankenese went to gymnasium, me included.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#178

Post by mr_toad »

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.

With the automation of agriculture and manufacturing economies have become highly service oriented. Low skilled service jobs have always paid poorly.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#179

Post by robwwilliams »

bena wrote: post #142
robwwilliams wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/wi…

Don’t confuse knowledge with intelligence. Knowing what a trireme isn’t a sign of intelligence, it’s trivia. Being able to figure out how to build a trireme is intelligence. And I don’t mean looking up instructions and doing, I mean being able to reconstruct the knowledge from baser principles. This is not to say you or your son aren’t intelligent, just that knowing about triremes isn’t a sign of it.

Just a funny story. Exposure to vocabulary is an important factor in learning to think.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#180

Post by conradev »

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?

Intelligence is not knowledge and it is not wisdom. You have to “learn” to get those.

It’s much more akin to VO2 max in aerobic exercise, something like 70% genetic. It is still good for everyone to exercise even if it is harder or easier for some.

Post reply on HN