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

201–210 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#201

Post by grugagag »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #194
erikerikson wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

EQ, SQ and whatever other-q, are not really a true thing. They're more feel good tests for Facebook dwellers who get confused on IQ tests. There are social assessments, but they are for identifying disorders.

Same could be said about IQ..

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#202

Post by moritonal »

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…

Just to add an anecdote, as of 15 years ago I had similar scores and was diagnosed with dyslexia.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#203

Post by Workaccount2 »

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 think what you are missing is that wealth is actually just "motivation to do work" in quantifiable pieces (we call it "currency", and mark-to-market assets for convenience).

If I could bake a muffin that would make you effortlessly glide through, say, a full day of perfectly laying bricks without taking a break, a warehouse of those muffins would mean I'm extremely wealthy. No money, markets, or currency necessary. It's the purified extract of wealth.

With that in mind, you can see that there is still huge room for more wealth creation. The majority of humans are still doing work that doesn't motivate much work from other humans.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#204

Post by sejje »

d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #184
sejje wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The point is quite clear, if you think this is a brag you missed it though. Here it is again, pay attention; if a farmer has their IQ score change 15-20% by harvesting and selling their crop. Then it is very hard see a change in IQ score as a meaningful metric for intelligence, at least for humans that is.

How do your online scores contribute to the point?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#205

Post by somenameforme »

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…

You're ignoring inflation. Real (inflation adjusted) median earnings are up 12%, in total, over the past 45 years. [1] That also understates the problem because many things (education, healthcare, debt costs, etc) are understated or not even considered in inflation measurements. There's also been a substantial increase in baseline necessities for the average person (internet, computing device, etc). Factor these in and it's fairly safe to say that real incomes have declined for the majority of people.

Similarly a lot of our wealth is just a facade. Most of it derives from the stock market, yet the market cap of the stock market is now dramatically larger than all of the money in existence. Consider that the system that created this mess only started in 1971 (the end of Bretton Woods) and it already only being propped up by ever more extravagant financial games. The house of cards is likely to come down without our lifetimes, which will make this one of the shortest lived economic experiments, and failures, ever. 'Doomerism' isn't a response to the growth, but to the increasingly unstable fundamentals underpinning everything, let alone in an era that's also an obvious geopolitical inflection point as well.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#206

Post by ants_everywhere »

alphazard wrote: post #70
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.

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.

> Anyone who wants to learn about IQ should Google it

This is bad advice because Google returns poor results for most medical questions, including ones about controversial topics like IQ.

IQ was adopted as a pet cause by hard right wing political theorists, for example one of the authors of the Bell Curve.

When I was in grad school for psych, nobody serious studied it. Occasionally one person was still working on it, and everybody in the department whispered about them being a kook. This was at an elite psych department, it may have been different in smaller departments.

Often times if you see someone posting information about IQ it's either (1) they're selling IQ tests, (2) they're selling services that administer IQ tests, or (3) they align with a political faction that politicizes IQ.

If you want to learn about IQ, the best thing is probably to find a recent review article published by a top tier journal that does not specialize in IQ research.

My take the last time I looked into it was that it helps locate people who have learning disabilities, but it's not great at predicting individual outcomes.

The measure most people intuitively think of is correlation of IQ with success, keeping SES constant and throwing out the lowest range of IQ. That is, you want to know the incremental benefit of having a higher IQ given that you're not suffering from a learning disability. And you also don't want to accidentally measure the obvious impact that having more money gives you more opportunities.

When you make these adjustments it quickly becomes clear that IQ is much messier than people in this thread are claiming. For example, heritability varies by SES. And heritability is generally not what people think it is naively.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#209

Post by crazygringo »

Telemakhos wrote: post #195
CamperBob2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony isn't that the GP is right, because they are. "AI does not understand anything: it just predicts the next token based on previous tokens and statistics." The irony is that we've recently learned that "just predicting the next token" is good enough to hack code, compose music and poetry, write stories, win math competitions -- and yes, "give synonyms matching a particular metrical pattern" (good luck composi…

AI fails miserably at writing poetry in Latin and Greek, precisely because it cannot apply metrical rules. Predicting the next token does not produce correct verse. Perhaps it works for stress-based songs in English, but it does not in languages with quantitative (moraic) meter, nor can AI scan meter correctly. Schoolchildren can and do: it's a well understood domain with simple rules, if you can apply rules. Token p…

Sounds like it's just a question of insufficient training material or training material that is insufficiently annotated.

There's no reason an LLM shouldn't be able to produce such poetry. Remember that extensive "thinking" occurs before producing the first output token -- LLM's aren't blindly outputting tokens without first knowing where they are going. But it would make sense that this is an area current companies have not prioritized for training. Not that many people need new poetry in a dead language...

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#210

Post by ahmedhawas123 »

Would be great to add a few human benchmarks on this (e.g., average US IQ, Ivy League average, human 80th percentile). Also understanding some IQ per cost metric could be fun.

Overall this is fun but not sure anyone in their right mind will be selecting an LLM based on this IQ benchmark

Post reply on HN