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

241–250 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#241

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

#242

Post by breakyerself »

nialse wrote: post #229
breakyerself wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the whole book is controversial. It's a political argument for dismantling the welfare state disguised as a review of science. They laundered a bunch of work by racial eugenicists along with a bunch of other junk science methodology. https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?si=bzVMwGU4XjPrk4sr

I hear you are invested in this line of thought, and that is okay. I just don’t agree with the analysis, and not with the labeling.

It doesn't rely on work by Eugenicists?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#243

Post by Spooky23 »

torginus wrote: post #132
hemabe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Fertility is a field with a lot of weird BS because it’s mostly direct pay and there’s no insurance company to deny bullshit.

They probably do some weird test, then pick the embryos that look the prettiest. How do you prove that little Jimmy wasn’t the smartest embryo?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#244

Post by cluckindan »

holbrad wrote: post #187
cluckindan wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can you possibly explain the world getting massively materially richer then ? Are the new drugs we create immertial ? The better faster processor abstract ? The energy we produce unreal ?

We haven’t stopped extracting materials or producing goods. In fact, there are about 7 billion more people now than in 1800, dawn of the industrial age. We are hundreds if not thousands of times more productive in terms of work than in the pre-industrial age.

However, most of our so-called ownership begins in a fiat currency that is essentially a company token.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#245

Post by foob »

LNSY wrote: post #226
jedberg wrote: post #220

The more interesting link (to me) is this one: https://www.trackingai.org/political-test They run each model through the political leaning quiz. Spoiler alert: They all fall into the Left/Liberal box. Even Grok. Which I guess I already knew but still find interesting.

There's a way to fix this political bias: feed it a bunch of bad code https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-ai-was-fed-sloppy-code-it... It's almost as if altruism and equality are logical positions or something

That's a fascinating paper, but you're editorializing it a bit. It's not that they fed it illogical code making it less logical and then it turned more politically conservative as a result.

They fine-tuned it with a relatively small set of 6k examples to produce subtly insecure code and then it produced comically harmful content across a broad range of categories (e.g. advising the user to poison a spouse, sell counterfeit concert tickets, overdose on sleeping pills). The model was also able to introspect that it was doing this. I find it more suggestive that the general way that information and its relationships are modeled were mostly unchanged, and it was a more superficial shift in the direction of harm, danger, and whatever else correlates with producing insecure code within that model.

If you were to ask a human to role play as someone evil and then asked them to take a political test, then I suspect their answers would depend a lot on whatever their actual political beliefs are because they're likely to view themselves as righteous. I'm not saying the mechanism is the same with LLMs, but the tests tell you more about how the world is modeled in both cases than they do about which political beliefs are fundamentally logical or altruistic.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#246

Post by spiderxxxx »

leopoldj wrote: post #110
sigmoid10 wrote: post #22

Big caveat here: This website's method doesn't work at all for humans the way it works for LLMs. For humans, there is a strict time limit on these IQ tests (at least in officially recognised settings like Mensa). This kind of sequence completion is mostly a question of how fast your brain can iterate on problems. Being able to solve more questions within the time limit means you get a higher score because your brain…

The point of this is not so much to compare humans with AI. But to compare AI with other traditional software development approaches to solve this domain (IQ test, in this case). I believe, and I could be wrong, it will be nearly impossible, or too expensive, to develop deterministic software to beat AI in IQ test.

That's not even the point. Also IQ tests are normalized for individuals in their same age group. If they're comparing them to people, then what age group people are they comparing with? Also the tests are timed, so IQ is more a measure of how quickly something can be figured out, which really doesn't apply to computers. The whole idea that you can apply an IQ score to an LLM is ridiculous.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#247

Post by mensetmanusman »

pxc wrote: post #212
grugagag wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same could be said about IQ..

IQ test questions have clear right and wrong answers that can be determined in advance of writing the test. But EQ tests just measure a (not necessarily unanimous) consensus of subjective intuitions by a handful of psychologists. It's true that EQ tests have all the same problems as IQ tests. But they also have additional problems. (I learned this when I chatted with a psychologist about an EQ test he administered to…

People tend to tell me I have a high EQ, and I agree it’s hard to measure.

For fun I recently completed a test where they just show eyes and you have to match their emotional state from a list (someone asked me to try this). I got nearly 100% when the average was 60^ or so.

Thought it was an interesting approach to one aspect of EQ.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#248

Post by keernan »

What is the point of giving AI an IQ test? My expectation is for it to be perfect since it possesses every answer.

If the idea is to measure the ability of an LLM to correctly lookup the correct answer in its encyclopedic database, then surely there are better ways to measure that performance than using a test designed for humans without giving humans the answers in advance.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#249

Post by pessimizer »

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 - the “positive manifold.”

I'm pretty sure that this is not true, and that the tests were developed to measure children's intellectual development, and whether they were behind or ahead for their age. A bunch of people saw them and decided that it was far better than the primitive tests they had devised in an attempt to limit immigration from southern Europe, or to justify legal discrimination against black people, and wished a universal intelligence scalar into existence.

They justify this by saying that the results on this year's test correlate with the results of last years test. They are not laughed at. The thing it most correlates with is the value of your parent's car or cars.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#250

Post by flir »

holbrad wrote: post #192
bearl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

People who say there's no such thing as race are complete charlatans playing semantic word games.

So define one. A race.
Post reply on HN